Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MARCEL ERDAL
LEIDEN
BRILL
2004
FOR
E R AN
AND
T ALI A
CONTENTS
I INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1
1.1 Early and Proto-Turkic and Altaic ......................... 1
1.2 The Old Turkic corpus and its parts ....................... 6
1.3 History of research ................................................. 22
1.31 Sources .................................................................... 22
1.32 The lexicon .............................................................. 23
1.33 Grammar ................................................................. 24
1.34 Dialectology and language change ......................... 33
II GRAPHEMICS, SPELLING, PHONOLOGY AND
MORPHOPHONOLOGY .............................................. 37
2.1 Graphemics ............................................................. 37
2.2 The vowels ............................................................... 45
2.21 Vowel length ........................................................... 46
2.22 The vowel /e/ ........................................................... 50
2.23 The vowel /ï/ ........................................................... 52
2.24 The archphoneme /X/ .............................................. 59
2.3 The consonants ........................................................ 62
2.31 The labials ............................................................... 63
2.32 The alveolars ........................................................... 67
2.33 The palatals ............................................................. 70
2.34 The velars and */h/ .................................................. 75
2.35 The sibilants ............................................................ 83
2.36 The liquids .............................................................. 84
2.4 Phonotactics and phonetic processes ..................... 86
2.401 Vowel assimilation by vowels ........................ 86
2.402 Vowel assimilation by consonants .................. 91
2.403 Syncopation and stress .................................... 97
2.404 Consonant distribution .................................... 99
2.405 Consonant clusters and their resolution .......... 105
2.406 Metathesis ....................................................... 113
2.407 Parasitical consonants ..................................... 114
2.408 Consonant assimilation ................................... 115
2.409 The appearance of voiced stop allophones ..... 117
2.410 Onset devoicing ............................................... 121
2.411 Changes affecting /g/ ...................................... 122
2.412 Haplology ........................................................ 123
2.413 Word fusion ..................................................... 125
viii CONTENTS
Writing a grammar of Old Turkic has for two main reasons proven a
quite formidable task. The first reason is the sheer size of the corpus,
which has, during the last decade, kept growing at a breathtaking pace.
At present, none of the three most voluminous sources, the
!"$#% &')( *,+ -.0/213,. 4%1 576
Suvarnaprabh
has as yet been edited in a way integrating all available manuscripts.
Especially the DKPAM, with its lively narrative content containing so
many specimens of direct speech, will no doubt further contribute to
our knowledge of the language. As it is, I was not even able to work
myself through all the extant published material so that, in principle,
surprises in any section of the grammar are still possible. The only
thing I can say is that such surprises have come less and less often
during the last months.
Another reason why this task has proven to be a formidable one is the
number of articles which appeared over the years on various
phonological and morphological matters relevant for the questions
which I have tried to answer. Although I have unfortunately been able
to take this literature into account only to a limited extent, many will
feel that I have indulged too much in argumentation with colleagues,
thus giving various passages the air of papers in a journal. The fact is
that I have, in many sections, felt the need not only to state my views
but also to justify them as against competing opinions. This motive may
soemetimes also have led to an overaccumulation of examples, making
reading difficult. However, those wishing to continue research into
various topics will, I think, be thankful for a wealth of material which
will, hopefully, help them reach their own judgements.
I would encourage colleagues to come forth with their criticisms. One
domain which should be further developed is tense and aspect. Another
matter which I have left for others is a detailed appraisal of the sources
from a dialectological and diachronic point of view. The work will be
attacked for having handled such diverse sources as the Orkhon
inscriptions, Uygur Tantric literature and the Qutadgu Bilig in a single
grammar. This approach is, I think, at present justified by the fact that
not all isoglosses seem to fit into neat bundles. Where mss. in Sogdian
script share several linguistic features with the Qutadgu Bilig, where
Orkhon Turkic forms and constructions find their specific explanation
in Uygur patterns, it would be highly counter-productive to split up the
description. The present work is in any case quite unlikely to be the last
xii PREFACE
INTRODUCTION
1 The Bugut inscription, written around 580 A.D.: See Kljaštornyj & Livšic 1972;
latest readings in Yoshida & Moriyasu 1999.
2 Cf. Schmitt 1971. There were several ABDCFEFGFH%IKJLNMPONH
QCRSGFTUIKQPGVIUJ,LNMPGRXWGFO QY[Z \ ] ^ _a`b
INTRODUCTION 3
at least the suffix is definitely Turkic.3 The matter is often not as simple
as in this case, in that foreign documentation often consists of titles,
which tend to get passed from one language to another: If, in Hungary,
the Avar ruler was called kaganus, this by itself does not mean that the
Avars were Turks: As it happens, the source of this title appears not to
have been Turkic in the first place, and it was also borrowed by other
Central Eurasian nations. Some further evidence may indicate that the
Avars spoke some form of Turkic.
The Turkic languages are genetically fairly close-knit although they
have, of course, diverged in time (and, in certain cases, converged).
Reconstructing the hypothetical Proto-Turkic language through the
genetic comparison of the Turkic languages seems to be a feasible goal,
but work in this direction has been slow, sometimes marred by
dilettantism: Much of it took place in the Soviet Union, where too much
weight was put on modern evidence at the expense of earlier stages of
the language. Scholars have put much less energy and thought into a
model of inner-Turkic genetic affinities than into the Altaic problem:
the question whether the great number of lexical and grammatical units
and typological traits which Turkic shares with the Mongolic group of
languages and, to a considerably lesser extent, with the Tunguz
languages, Korean and Japanese points at a genetic relationship or
whether it is attributable to borrowing, copying activity or coincidence.
This question, which deserves collective treatment by specialists for the
different languages and language groups, will not be dealt with here.4
What is certain is that a lot of the contact involving the copying of
specific items in all domains of language between Turkic and Mongolic
on the one hand, Mongolic and Tunguz on the other hand took place
before the peoples speaking these languages began putting them into
writing. It is therefore in any case useful to speak of ‘Altaic languages’
as a term covering at least these three language groups; as an areal term
if not as a genetic one. Turkic and Mongolic may well be related
genetically (my knowledge of the other languages is quite insufficent
for me to make any statements in this respect) but adequate serious
research on the nature of their relationship is still lacking.
3 Not to be confused with +lXg, which is found also in Mongolic. The symbol + here
used marks nominal juncture, whereas - is used to indicate juncture between verbs and
their suffixes.
4 The author has pointed out in a review (Erdal 1997) that clear similarities exist also
with Hurro–Urartæan; cf. further Erdal 1998 for the domain of verb formation in Turkic
and Mongolic.
4 CHAPTER ONE
Greek writing and belong to the 9th or 10th centuries:7 While all early
Asian documentation represents a single fairly close-knit language, the
sparse and difficult Danube Bolgarian material is aberrant, represents a
different idiom and is not taken into consideration here. Nor are the
Volga Bolgarian inscriptions, which date from the Middle Turkic period
(13th-14th century); both corpuses in any case represent different
languages than the one described here.8 To this latter material one might
add words borrowed from varieties of early and middle European
Turkic into Hungarian. This rich evidence is important for the
reconstruction of Proto-Turkic and but unlikely to give specific
stuv
sw%xsyaz@{}|#~%sX>w%%,-sv
s!|
u!|#~~%sP{s- - #/ th century
gives linguistic information on a number of Turkic dialects or languages
of his time; see Brockelmann 1921 and Dankoff & Kelly 1985 on this.
The corpus of extant Turkic is conveniently divided into three periods,
old, middle and modern. The end of the Old Turkic period was brought
about by the impact of the Mongol invasion in the 13th century, which
covered everything from South China to Poland and Hungary, from
Eastern Siberia to Syria and Central Anatolia. Involving the whole of
the Turkic world, it at first put most of the Turks to flight, breaking up
social structures and rearranging ethnic geography. Subsequently, most
Turkic groups were engulfed in the boundless Mongol empire and its
successor states, in which they were usually the culturally and
ethnically dominating though not the leading element; this had the
effect of enhancing inter-Turkic linguistic contact and leveling. During
the Middle Turkic period, which was ushered in by this upheaval, most
of the Turkic world became Islamic; except, that is, those parts of it
which were dominated by China and later by the (Mongolian) Kalmyks.
Islam brought about greater literacy among much of the Turkic world.
The Eastern part of Chinese Turkestan, Gansu, Mongolia and Southern
Siberia including and east of the Altay range remained outside the
influence of Islam. In this eastern and north eastern part of Asia, Turks
went on adhering to Buddhism or to varieties of Shamanism, partly
influenced by Buddhism. In Eastern Europe there were also Christian
and Jewish Turkic-speaking groups, but very little written material has
survived from them from the early Middle Turkic period; the 14th
century Codex Comanicus is one important Christian Middle Turkic
source (in Latin characters). Middle Turkic is, on the whole, characte-
rized by two or three written languages in the Islamic literary tradition,
7 See Erdal 1988 for one important such source and its relationship with the Danube-
Bolgarian inscriptions.
8 See Erdal 1993 for the Volga Bolgarian corpus.
6 CHAPTER ONE
often quite distinct from the dialects and languages spoken by the
authors, evolving over time and actually varying from author to author
and indeed from manuscript to manuscript. However, the sources of this
period practically from the beginning show a clear division between
four ethnically and geographically distinct dialect groups crystallizing
into written languages: Eastern Turkic, Kipchak, Bolgarian and Oguz.
Northern and central parts of all this was then gradually incorporated
into Russia. The Modern Turkic period starts around the middle of the
19th century, when scholars such as Castrén, Vámbéry, Raquette,
Böhtlingk or Radloff described as yet unwritten Turkic languages and
dialects of High Asia. At about the same time, Christian missionaries
initiated the alphabetisation of some of these languages with the
purpose of spreading their faith; this is how the first sources of Chuvash
or Shor were printed. Travellers such as Stralenberg or Pallas had, since
the 18th century, supplied the scholarly world with some preliminary
information about such languages. By the end of the 19th century
Kazakh, Azeri or Ottoman authors were increasingly making their
written languages look like their speech. For languages like Tatar or
Turkmen, parting from the Arabic alphabet in the 20th century was the
decisive step into a relatively faithful representation of national tongues.
Old Turkic as described in this book comprises all extant texts written
in early Asian Turkic as well as phrases appearing in sources in other
Asian languages such as the Bactrian mss. or the
- ¢¡£ edited by
F.W.K. Müller (SEddTF III 151-190). Since early European Turkic is
practically nonexistent as an unstarred entity, no confusion can, we
think, come from using the term ‘Old Turkic’ to refer not to an abstract
stage in the history of the Turkic languages in general, but to a specific
language once spoken in central regions of Asia, and delimited by the
corpus which represents it. My use of the term ‘Common Turkic’ is
explained in the following section.
This book deals with the remains of what was written down in the
Asian domains of the early Turks, which consists of three corpuses:
1) Two hundred odd inscriptions in the Old Turkic runiform script,
presumably 7th to 10th century. These were discovered mostly in present
day Mongolia (the area covering the territory of the second Türk empire
and the Uygur steppe empire following upon it) and in the upper
Yenisey basin (the domains of the Qïrqïz and ¤¦¥¨§ª©#«F¥¬)®<¯3¥¨°²±,°
©#«³´
South Siberia. A few readable runiform inscriptions were discovered
INTRODUCTION 7
further west, in the Altay mountains all the way to the Irtysh river,
sporadically all over present-day Kazakhstan and Kirgizstan (here
especially in Talas, the capital of the Western Second Türk kaghanate)
and the north eastern part of Chinese Turkestan; see e.g. Vasil’ev
1976/78 for a short survey. Most of these are epitaphs, but some are
mere graffiti on prominent rocks by the side of main roads. There also
are some objects (e.g. coins, mirrors, bricks, a spindle whorl, bowls)
inscribed with the same script. Many of the runiform inscriptions from
Mongolia are official, but most of the other ones stem from common
(though sometimes obviously highly regarded) individuals.
2) Old Uygur9 manuscripts from the eastern part of present-day
Xinjiang and Gansu (China), from the 9th century on, in the Uygur,
Manichæan, runiform, 10 µ·¶ ¸ ¹
º » ¼S½¾
¿-À/ÁÂÃļS½Å%ÆFÁÂǼ[ÂÃ%ÀÈSÁÉ%ÊËÂPÃÌ=ÇÆFÁÍ-ËaÌÎ
Most
Ï
ÐÑÒÔÓof
ÐÓÕ<them
ÖF×
Ø
ÕÙ
are
Ú
Ò;Ûkept
ÕFÜÝÖ=Ú-Þàinß á Berlin
âã/äæå-âã/but
çè-é%there are
ã/êë3ä
ìî íêÝcollections
ï=ðñ
è%ð>ä-ò7ñ
è/óPôalso
óä
õïin
âóñ
London,
ö
÷Äêóñ%ø
China itself; a few pieces have landed elsewhere. The Uygur ms. corpus
is by far the most extensive among the three. Much of it consists of
Buddhist, Manichæan or Christian religious material, but there are also
legal documents such as contracts, personal or administrative letters,
medical or astrological treatises, glossaries, folkloric sources and prose
and verse narrative texts. Approximately three quarters of the whole
corpus consist of Buddhist sources (mostly belonging to its ù ú û
ü yana
branch). Manichaean sources make up less than 10%, but most of these
are relatively old. The Christian texts are the least numerous and do not
seem to be particularly early. The present description tries to base itself
in principle primarily on mss. thought to antedate the (mid-13th century)
establishment of Mongol rule. Sources from the rule of the Yuan (i.e.
Mongolian) dynasty were by their authors meant to be in the same
language as earlier sources, however, and can be difficult to tell from
earlier ones.
Uygur scholars nowadays broadly distinguish three stages: The pre-
classical stage including most of the Manichæan material but also
Buddhist texts like the extensive Sängim ms. of the Maitrisimit; the so-
9 We will, henceforth, use the term Uygur to refer to Old Uygur as being described
here, rather than to Modern Uygur now spoken in Xinjiang, Kazakhstan etc., or to
Middle Uygur as documented from Ming and other pre-modern sources.
10 There is sometimes some confusion regarding the linguistic assignment of the
runiform mss., e.g. in Johanson 1998: 85: These are written in the same language as the
rest of Xinjiang Uygur (within which there are dialect differences); the language of the
runiform inscriptions of the Uygur Empire found on steles in Mongolia is, on the other
hand, practically the same as that of Orkhon Turkic.
8 CHAPTER ONE
called koiné11 stage, including e.g. the translations made from Chinese
by the team of Šiý þ/ÿ
"!$#%&&'()%+*-,../*0!12
Uygur stage which we find in Tantric texts like the Totenbuch edited by
Kara and Zieme. Criteria for the linguistic dating of Old Turkic sources
were first offered in Erdal 1979 (a reformulation of a section in Erdal
1976). The topic was subsequently taken up by several scholars, fullest
by Doerfer 1993. We will come back to the question of relative dating
within Uygur further on in this section.
3) 11th century Turkic texts from the Qarakhanid state: In Arabic
3465
7980:$;=<?>A@CB D E)FGHIJLKMIN$OQPJSRUT0NV(W&X
writing, the Qutadgu Bilig, a poem consisting of six thousand odd
12 and the -Turk, an Y Z []\ ^9_`a_ b c dfehg d
Arabic-Turkic lexicon and encyclopedia featuring morphological,
derivational and dialectological notes, by Mah .13 Land ikj lmon+phqsr t uv$w
sale documents in Uygur writing found in Yarkand are the only direct
14
Turkic Muslim ms. evidence from the period, since the three QB mss.
and the only ms. of the DLT are not autographs but somewhat later
copies. Mah xky z{
also quotes forms from dialects other than his own, the
DLT thus serving as earliest evidence15 for other early varieties of
Turkic. Material from other varieties is, in general, excluded from the
present work: Qarakhanid grammar is close enough to Uygur grammar
to make a single description for both corpuses meaningful, which is not
necessarily the case with other material quoted in the DLT. Features of
other dialects are not, however, disregarded; e.g.: The Oguz cognates of
|2} ~SUThis$
term
11
&}|2](used
+S} ~$byS1Röhrborn
~101~$(Uand|} Laut
+}|9Min}|2-Ua)1number
} ~$of|2their
}-1f|)$publications
U ¡]¢£ ¤¥at¦Mleast
§)¨©]ª
‘common’; koinè diálektos was the name originally given to the relatively late, post-
classical variety of Greek which was mostly based on the Ionian dialect and replaced
practically all the (other) Greek dialects to serve as common language not only to
Greeks but also to others who came under their sway or adopted their culture. The
variety of Uygur which is, I think, better just called ‘Classical’ or ‘Standard’ is a stage
in the development of the language and of its spelling when it had established relatively
strong and clear norms. The language apparently was, at this stage, spoken more or less
as it was written, which was probably no longer the case for Late Uygur sources.
12 Edited by Arat (1947), translated into English (with important notes) in Dankoff
1983. Tezcan 1981 will also be important for a better edition in the future.
13 Dankoff & Kelly 1982-85 is an edition of the Turkic (transcribed and transliterated),
couched in an English translation of the Arabic parts of the text.
14 Erdal 1984.
15 The reliability of the DLT cannot be wholly taken for granted in this specific matter,
as Mah «¬ ®?¯±°²9³S´¶µ·S´¸
¹U´º1»f²2¼)·S°"¸0½-¼U¾-®¿»¼U²2¼U°»¹ÀS¼»½Á³¿µÂÀ$¼ÄÃ?´1®1¼»0³²2¼³]²2¼Å$ƺµÇÀS½²&¼È1½-®1¼³$¹U¼
does seem convincing. ÉËÊ1ÌaÍ
ÊÎ6ÍÂÏ$ÐÑ Ò$Î0ÊÓ0ÔMÕ=ÍÑ-ÊÒÖÌ×1ØØSÙ-Ñ-ÐUÚ?ÛÜ?Ý Þ ß à1áâ ã
äåMæç$èé1ê-ëUì-èUí=æîçSëî
not yet been matched with modern and comparative data and there is as yet no
conclusive investigation of this question.
INTRODUCTION 9
äšgäk ’donkey’, buš-gak ‘asthma’ and the dative suffix +kA, which lack
the velars of the quoted forms altogether, are certainly relevant for our
view on the shape of these Old Turkic elements; they show that äšgäk
and bušgak must have had g and not k although k would have been a
possible reading of what is documented, and that there must, beside
+kA, also have been an early variant dative suffix +gA. koyma ïz and ï
ï
kïyma ïz, which are in DLT fol.289 quoted as Oguz and Kïp ð]ñ$òôóõ6ö÷Cø
for the negated 2nd person plural imperative, are relevant for Turkic in
general, because they show that /d/ > /y/ had taken place in at least
some Early Turkic dialects already in the second half of the 11th
ù
century, and that -(X) -lAr had not been generalised to all early dialects.
ú
û ü&û6ýAþÿ ]ú ý ú 2ú
The legend of Oguz Kagan, which is considered to be in Old Turkic
]ü þ
!#"$%& '(*),+-,./+0)21# - 3
a stage of Turkic which is quite different from Old Turkic and much
later. Buyan Ävirmäk, a text stretch found at the end of the 18th century
Petersburg ms. of Suv, was added at a very late stage and cannot be
called ‘Old Turkic’ either. Nor can the 12 th century Atabatu ’l -457608 9!:&;<
which should be considered to belong to Middle Turkic though its
composition took place in the Qarakhanid realm. A weakness of
descriptions of Old Turkic by Soviet scholars was that they described
Uygur together with such Middle Turkic sources, taking all of them to
be expressions of a single language. Among the three mss. of the QB,
ms. A is very late; its content is not evidence for the text except when
considered together with mss. B and C. R.R. Arat had, in 1947,
published an edition of the QB based on all three mss.; not knowing this
edition or disregarding it, Soviet scholars quoted each of the three mss.
as if each were a source by itself.16
The three source groups mentioned constitute all the early written
remains of Common Turkic17 in so far as they can be read at present:
Many short inscriptions discovered west of Chinese Turkestan and
South Siberia, e.g. in the Altay region, are hard to decipher: Where
aberrant forms have been read, there is the possibility of misreadings.
16 Thus also in the DTS. Such errors can have long-lasting influence. E.g., Anderson
2002 gives kir- as an inchoative auxiliary verb, quoting a phrase ‘sevä kirsä’ for “KB II
42” from Š =%>@?BAC@DFEHGJIKEML 153. It turns out that this is a reference to what ms. A alone has
in QB 403, while the other ms. extant for this passage has something quite different.
There is no other ‘evidence’ for kir- as auxiliary in Old Turkic.
17 I here use ‘common’ in the sense of ‘ordinary’, to refe r to what Schönig 1997: 119-
120 calls ‘Norm Turkic’. Schönig there uses ‘Common Turkic’ to refer to the diasystem
+ ‘diadictionary’ which is the lowest common denominator of all Turkic languages; this
is a concept for which I have no use and which is not what I have in mind. The term
‘Norm Turkic’ sounds, I feel, too normative.
10 CHAPTER ONE
18 In view of its limited documentation, ud- could, in principle, also have come from
udu by back-formation.
19 This is a matter mentioned also by Doerfer 1975-76: 9, who writes: "Atu. is, so to
say, not the grand-father of all modern Ctu languages but their grand-uncle. It shows
some specific (dialect) features.”
INTRODUCTION 11
vowel roundings after onset b in words such as büt- ‘to come to an end,
be perfected’, buzagu ‘calf’ or bulït ‘cloud’ in runiform mss., whereas a
number of modern Turkic languages have the original unrounded
vowels; also, e.g., words starting with /m/ < /b/ when the next syllable
has a nasal. Verbal forms like kod-ma-V -lar ‘don’t put (pl.)’ are also
secondary,
WYX[Z \-]^ _ `baMcdas
`QefYisa[`hthe
gi`kj7alternative
l(mncpo!qjr$snform
gt-uvwin azy{7j[V`@o3-Xz
qjx-mA- |K}~|0which,
|Kas
|Ky
already
vg0},B{
(as a theoretical construction) was, in any case, probably quite similar to
Old Turkic in many respects. Old Turkic must therefore be taken note
of as a very central ingredient of any reconstruction of Proto-Turkic (the
ancestor, that is, of Common Turkic, Khaladj, Chuvash etc.). Another
important source for this reconstruction is evidence from Mongolic.
Due to some of its characteristics (e.g. the hortative in -(A)lIm, the
future in -z~J instead of -gAy), Doerfer 1975-76a: 83 thought that
Orkhon Turkic was especially close to Oguz Turkic;20 other scholars
e.g. Tezcan) have also subscribed to this view, which deserves further
consideration.
The three corpuses mentioned above represent a coherent group of
fuzzy dialects differing most in the lexicon (as they belong to different
cultural domains), certainly also in morphology and in some ways also
in phonology. Syntactic differences may in part be due to the fact that
the corpuses contain different textual types, but also reflect the gradual
Turkification of much of the population using Uygur, and historical
development. Translations, which constitute most of our corpus 2
(though by no means all of it), were, in particular, carried out by bi-
lingual committees. Corpuses 1 and 2 are not dialectally homogeneous;
phonic and grammatical differences between the corpuses are probably
not greater than those found within them. Geographical dialects can
hardly be worked out within group 2, as mss. for public use would tra-
vel and be copied by scribes differing in dialect;21 personal documents
are relatively short and rather repetitive. Phonic and morphological
differences are not as great as to necessitate distinct descriptions for
different texts or text groups. Nevertheless, our description cannot
pretend to be based on a homogenous corpus but will, where deemed
20 Johanson 1998: 85 writes about the language of the Orkhon inscriptions: ‘Though it
exhibits some features that are later typical of Oguz, it may well be taken to represent a
Common Turkic that has not yet split into Oghuz, Kipchak and Uyghur.’ This is clearly
mistaken.
21 Some features possibly characterising the dialect of Khotan are mentioned further
on in this section. See Doerfer 1993: 3 and the reference given there to work of Bazin
for the exact coordinates of places where mss. and inscriptions were discovered.
12 CHAPTER ONE
22 This distinction later led to the generalization of the person category in verb forms.
23 Small capitals are used for transliterating Semitic alphabets.
INTRODUCTION 13
the progressive variant with /y/, or scribes whose language had already
lost /ñ/ to have made copies from mss. which still had /ñ/, introducing
the change sporadically. In Oguz Turkic /ñ/ becomes /yn/ (with a vowel
intruding between /y/ and /n/ when demanded by syllable structure) but
this does not (except in the word koñ > koyn ‘sheep’) happen in Uyg ur.
All of Uygur can therefore be characterised as a bundle of y dialects,
like many of the Turkic languages today; the runiform mss. are a
possible exception, and there is the exception of some mss. in Sogdian
script, where we seem to find a clear instance of anïg; see further on in
this section for that. If, as pointed out by Röhrborn 1983, the Sängim
ms. of Mait exclusively has /ñ/ > /y/ but on the other hand all the
characteristics of early Uygur texts, this should come as no surprise:
The copyist of this ms. was more efficient than e.g. the one of the
London scroll of TT VI in doing away with instances of /ny/; had the
latter’s personal language not already undergone the process, he would
not have made the replacement at all.
Additional characteristics which are used for the distinction between
dialects or between pre-classical and classical sources (depending on
the viewpoint) are the presence of the converb suffixes -(X)pAn24 or
even -(X)pAnXn instead of or beside -(X)p (all dealt with in section
3.286); the use of the case ending +dA/+tA and not +dIn to express
ablative meaning (discussed in section 4.1106);25 the inscriptional use
of the projection participle in -sXk where all mss. except the Xw use
-gU and -gUlXk instead (see all three in section 3.284);26 the appearance
of low unrounded vowels in the genitive, instrumental and accusative27
case suffixes and in the accusative allomorph for the 3rd person
possessive suffix, in the 1st and 2nd person singular and plural possessive
and perfect suffixes, the 1st person singular and plural and 2nd person
24 A dash before a suffix signifies that the base is a verb stem; the plus sign signifies
that it is not. Vowels placed in brackets are dropped when the base ends in a vowel;
consonants in brackets, as in +(s)I(n), are dropped when following upon consonants or
under other conditions specified in the grammar. Capital letters in transcriptions of suf-
fixes refer to archphonemes, realizations being specified in the phonology; see section
2.51 for the realizations of /X/, /U/ etc.. Note that the letter X refers to a vowel archpho-
neme in transcriptions but (in slightly smaller font) to a Semitic consonant letter (h¥ ¦b§©¨ ,
normally used for representing /k/ and /g/ in back vowel contexts) in transliterations.
25 The presence of the variant +dAn is clearly also relevant to chronological and
dialectological questions.
26 In the runiform inscriptions -gU appears only in one or two lexemes while -gUlXk is
used twice in a proverb; these forms would have survived from an even earlier stage of
the language.
27 This suffix and other suffixes containing /g/ get lowered also in texts which are by
no means early, by adjacency with this consonant; see section 2.402.
14 CHAPTER ONE
plural volitional suffixes, the converb suffix -(X)p, the formatives +lXg
and +sXz and the passive suffix -(X)l-, which all generally have high
vowels (section 2.24);28 the appearance of /š/ as s in one ms. (discussed
in section 2.35); rounding in verbal inflexional affixes in some mss. in
Sogdian script and two others, discussed further on in this section; the
appearance of the instrumental suffix as +(X)n and not as +(I)n (q.v. in
section 3.124); the non-nasal shape of -dXª as e.g. käl-tig ‘you came’ in
Pañc 192 which accords with similar realisations of /« ¬®[¯°¬ g/ in
runiform inscriptions (as discussed in section 2.34); the distribution of
the participles in -(X)glI and -(X)gmA (in productive use only in early
texts; see section 3.282) and the (mostly agentive) forms ending in
-±#²´³Mµ and -¶z·~³Jµ (discussed in sections 3.113 and 3.282): The Orkhon
inscriptions have -¶z·~³Mµ (-¸#·~³Mµ in the negative) as future suffix while
the rest of Old Turkic has -gAy. Opinions have varied on whether
differences concerning such criteria may be indications of dialects29 or
of different stages of the language or both. Doerfer 1993, who devoted a
monograph to the topic of the dating of Old Turkic, uses 30
characteristics for this purpose, some of them graphic (see section 2.1),
or in the phonological, the morphological and the lexical domains.
Many Manichæan texts appear to be pre -classical, but the Pothi book
(TT III etc.) has clear signs of lateness. Among Buddhist texts, the
Sängim ms. of the Mait, the London scroll of TT VI, BuddhBio and
another section of a Buddha biography edited in U II 4-7, possibly the
KP text30 and (not noted hitherto) the Vairocana fragment T I D 200
(Mainz 774) last edited by Zieme in a footnote in AoF VIII (1981): 242
show signs of being early. BuddhKat was by its editors Maue &
28 The lowering appears also in bar-am ‘livestock’ for med with the formative -(X)m,
attested in M III Nr.6 III r7, in a ms. belonging together with M I 7-17 and ManErz I.
¹Kºz»¼B»%½¿¾ÁÀJÂ!»2ÃM¼iÄ¡ÃMÅÆ»@Â!Ç ÈÉÇËʽ%Ê3ÊÌÇ©ÉQÈz»%Í#¾Ã¾Ëº»2ÎÉQÀÏ2Í Ç¡½HÄË»HÐ,¾0ÑMÒÓÔbÕ ÖJ½@Â × ØJÙJÚÛ ÜÝÞJßMÙJàdÛ ÚÛËáãâ
variable characteristic of early sources where /a ä/ are not conditioned by specific
ä%å3æ¿äHç%è@éMê-çHëMézìÌëMéä@éJêTì¿íJîBïKðwñbò óJä@ô õKöËìô!ö¡÷QøJêùêËøzöËìúûä,ü2ú#èHä@éûêËøzä¿ê[êËøè@ô!èýÆäbìiä@é#þ÷QÿÆö é ï ÿzè@éç%è
on early texts, or that the Oguz were relatively numerous among the Manichæans. It
would also go well with the idea that there is a special Oguz – Orkhon Turkic
connection, as Orkhon Turkic influence on the language of the inscriptions of the Uygur
Kaghanate is obvious.
29 One should here remember that the distribution of dialects need not be geographic
but can also be linked to communities. The Arabic dialects spoken in Baghdad in the
first half of the 20th century by Muslims, Christians and Jews, e.g, were quite distinct; in
one town in Western Persia Jews and Christians spoke two dialects of Neo-Aramaic
which were not even mutually intelligible.
30 This ms. appears to be, more than some other sources, a late copy of a quite early
text by a rather sloppy copyist, who not only made a number of mistakes but also
introduced some very late forms towards the end.
INTRODUCTION 15
31 ävigä ‘to his home’ in HamTouHou 18,4 is not necessarily an instance of the loss of
pronominal n, as ‘WXLYK’ for oglï, - ‘to his son’ in l.10 shows that the ms. spells / . /1032
K: /g/ would have been spelled as X in a back-harmony word. The genitive form minig
for mäni4 ‘mine’ in l.6 probably has the same explanation. The 2nd person imperative
plural form read istäglär in the same line is not necessarily an instance of /5 68796;:<6
either, as it can also be read as ist(ä)= >@?BA .
16 CHAPTER ONE
instance of the so-called n dialect (see section 2.33). Both -dUm and ñ >
n CD
E1FGCHHI!DKJMLNOQPRITSVU1W XCD Y F 32 characteristics of the speech of the Argu;
these Sogdian script mss. may therefore also represent this dialect.
Another noteworthy feature of the Sogdian script mss. are several
examples of an extended form of the 3rd person imperative (e.g. artama-
zunï),
Z
found also in the QB.33 We know that Argu was spoken in
C[C1\3CO]"NFCNJ+^`_ a
bcedfhgikjbfhglmnl"cofhgikprqkdsVj1antl!mvuTwuxfgwhanfRlsxu8yz{gwha
as well should therefore be an Argu feature. A further feature shared by
the Sogdian script mss. with the QB are the fused impossibility forms
(alumadï < alï umadï, alkumaz < alka umaz). Balasagun was in West
Turkistan; this proximity to the original homeland of the Sogds may
explain their Sogdian palæography and spelling characteristics .
On the other hand, the Sogdian script fragments have also retained the
pre-classical feature of sporadic and unconditioned vowel lowering.
Laut 1986 considers a Buddhist text to be pre-classical also when it has
Indian loans in Sogdian shape and adds a further criterion for early
dating: the introduction of superfluous alefs, not in the onset and
unjustified through any likely pronunciation before vowels within
words; e.g. yig’it ‘young man’ or |M}~ (the name of a hell called |M}
in Sanskrit). For these two reasons he also adds the Saddh to his list of
pre-classical texts, although it lacks all other criteria. Superfluous alefs
in a Manichæan text and in the Sängim ms. of the Mait are given in
Laut 1986: 69-70; instances in mss. in Sogdian script are listed by
Fedakâr in UAJb N.F. 10(1991): 93-94 (to be used together with the
glossary in UAJb N.F. 14(1996): 196-201 and the transliterations). The
lowering of unrounded high vowels is apparently equally common in
the Sängim and Hami mss., though not necessarily in the same words.
Gabain in several places expressed the view that the texts written in
"Vk33!G
;h M"h+x8 !KM¡R¢h¤£
32 The DLT (fol.504) ascribes the pronunciation bardum, käldüm (vs. bardam among
the Oguz and bardïm among the other Turks) to the dialect of the Argu.
33 Gabain 1976 expresses the view that this °I is the possessive suffix but there seems
to be no sense in that. I could imagine that it is a truncated ïd! ‘Let go!’, comparable to
English ‘Let him do this’. ïd- also serves as actionality auxiliary for energetic action
which became morphologised in some modern languages, and should also be behind the
°I which we find at the end of imperative forms of certain Khaladj verbs. As Doerfer
has shown in various places, Argu as described in the DLT shares several linguistic
features with Khaladj.
INTRODUCTION 17
34 Late Sanskrit, the source of some of these texts, is prone to extensive compounding;
moreover, it expresses even predicates in a preponderantly nominal manner.
18 CHAPTER ONE
35 We take -gUl to have fused from -gU ol, a marker of impersonal mood, but in some
of its instances it appears in parallelism with gIl; the matter is not completely clear.
36 As Zieme 1969: 23 notes in connection with the Pothi book where such confusions
are especially prominent, they are referred to as ‘Mongolisms’ because they generally
appear during Mongol domination (which is rather late as far as Old Turkic corpus is
concerned); he does not, however, draw the conclusion that the Pothi book must be late.
Occasional confusions such as sägiz for säkiz ‘eight’ in the Xw are called “irrtümliche
Schreibungen”. Zieme explains their generally rare occurence in Manichæan texts by
the traditional care which the Manichæans showed in the production of mss..
INTRODUCTION 19
due to contact with Mongolian and the way that language was written.
These processes did not all occur simultaneously, nor did they all
automatically apply to texts we know to have been late: Knowledge of
the standard language clearly lingered on into Yuan times, to varying
degrees with different individuals. We have already noted the rather
early appearance of the truncated variant of the conditional suffix -sAr
and of käräk as ‘necessity, necessary’ in the catechism in Tibetan
writing. The fact that medical and astrological texts have such
phenomena more than late religious texts shows that they mark progres-
siveness, supressed when writing or copying something venerable.
What should be kept in mind in this connection is that the spelling of
written texts, especially when adhering to a norm, rarely exactly
reproduces one to one the pronunciation of the people who write them;
fluctuations often reflect a conflict between the means put at the
writer’s dis posal by the writing system and how he thinks the words
should be pronounced, as well as between his pronunciation and
traditional spelling. If the London scroll in TT VI 89-90 shows thrice
the spelling ärkligin yorïglï and once the spelling ärkligän yorïglï, the
chances are that the scribe thought that 1) consistence was not
important, 2) neither spelling the word with alef nor spelling it with R S T
was fully appropriate for his purpose (which may or may not have been
directly linked to what he would be pronouncing). We know from
phonetic recordings that pronunciation can also fluctuate freely, but this
is not the only determinant of spelling. Some of the traits thought to be
phonic may be due to graphic fluctuations preceding standard spelling,
or to texts outside the spelling traditions. Laut’s (1986) explanation for
the inconsistent and uneven nature of the evidence is that the texts as we
have them represent the result of alterations by copyists under the
influence of their own dialect.37 I agree with this and have said as much
in connection with the ñ > y process.
Uygur texts which have Arabic, New Persian or Mongolian loans or
change /d/ to /y/ e.g. in kaygu < kadgu ‚sorrow’, kayït- < kadït- ‚to
return (intr.)’ should not be considered to be part of the O ld Turkic
corpus: Proto-Turkic /d/ has been preserved as an alveolar in some
Turkic languages to this day, so that the presence of the feature /y/ < /d/
(when preceded by a vowel in the same stem or suffix) is a dialect
37 Pp.61-62. He thinks the changes were deliberate, arguing against R.R.Arat who
considered them to be accidental. The correction from bašlag to bašlïg visible in the ms.
in Mait 73v20 is no proof, however, as the copyist may, in this particular case, have
been trying to prevent a misunderstanding: baš+lïg could have been misunderstood as
bašla-g, which also exists.
20 CHAPTER ONE
38 I see no reason to agree with Tenišev 1979 and scholars following his views on the
matter, who think that the language spoken by the Old Turkic population is substantially
different from their written language.
INTRODUCTION 21
39 Thus e.g. Johanson 1979 : 8. The fact is that none of the sub-corpuses is really
homogeneous.
22 CHAPTER ONE
1.31. Sources
We can look back to more than one century of research into Old Turkic,
initiated by W. Radlov’s edition in 1891 of the QB ms. in Uygur
writing40 and especially by W. Thomsen’s decipherment of the runiform
script in 1893. Runiform inscriptions had been discovered by travelers
to Siberia centuries earlier, and then by Fins exiled to that country and
by Russian archeologists; they were made accessible to the scholarly
world in 1892, through drawings and facsimiles in Finnish and Russian
publications. In the first 50 years of research, runiform inscriptions
were edited by Thomsen himself, by W. Radlov, S.E. Malov, G.J.
Ramstedt and others. Orkun 1936-41 is a collected reedition of all this
material. A great many short runiform inscriptions were then
discovered or rediscovered, edited or reedited in the Soviet Union,
mostly by D.D. Vasil’ev, I.L. Kyzlasov, S.E. Kljaštornyj and I.V.
Kormušin. Lists of runiform inscriptions can be found in Vasil’ev
1976/78 and Sertkaya 1984.
The Uygur corpus of Old Turkic was made available by Russian,
Japanese, German, British, French and Swedish expeditions to East
Turkestan and Gansu, the greatest number of mss. reaching Germany.
The writing itself was known in the West at least since Klaproth 1820.
The task of editing the sources discovered since the turn of the century
is still going on, the first editors being F.W.K. Müller, A. v. le Coq, W.
Bang, V. Thomsen, W.W. Radlov, P. Pelliot and G.J. Ramstedt.41
Between 1920 and 1970, Uygur texts were edited foremost by A.v.
Gabain, and also by S.E. Malov, G.R. Rachmati (subsequent name R.R.
Arat), T. Haneda, M. Mori, N. Yamada and À . Tekin. In recent decades
the activity of editing Uygur mss. (mostly in Germany, but also in
Japan, France, Turkey, the Soviet Union, the United States, China and
Finland42) expanded greatly; published dictionaries (see below)
40 The ms. edited by Radloff is actually the latest of the three existing mss. of this
source and shows certain characteristics of Middle Turkic. Even this ms. is, however,
certainly closer to Old Turkic than Chagatay sources, which Thomsen and other
scholars otherwise had as guidance for their texts.
41 Scholars are listed more or less in the order of their importance in this domain.
42 Order of listing again by approximate volume of activity. I don't see much point in
INTRODUCTION 23
giving a full list of editors; see the index of the UW for their names and publications.
The most prolific editor is probably P. Zieme, who is in charge of this task at the Berlin-
Brandenburg Academy of Sciences.
43 Religious Uygur texts, which are the majority, are normally translations, reformula-
tions, expansions etc. of texts in other languages; Chinese, Indic, Iranian or Tokharian if
the text is Buddhistic, Iranian if it is Manichaean, Iranian or Syriac if it is Christian.
24 CHAPTER ONE
1.33. Grammar
44 It covers only Uygur mss. excluding the runiform ones among them, but includes
the few inscriptions in Uygur script. Since our knowledge of Old Turkic advances
continuously, it is natural for details in the UW to need revision already while getting
published; this is often done in subsequent fascicles.
INTRODUCTION 25
45 Before these, Turkish Turcology had been mainly limited to Ottoman studies. The
founder of the study of the history of the Turkic peoples in Turkey is Z.V. Togan, also a
Tatar.
26 CHAPTER ONE
were any Uygur mss. edited there after a publication by S.E. Malov (the
student of W. Radlov) in 1932 (as distinct from editions of inscriptions,
which did go on). The reason for this gap may have been the fact that
Soviet scholars were already busy enough describing the modern Turkic
languages spoken in their realm, that such activity seemed more useful
and that western scholarship was practically inaccessible to Soviet
scholars. Moreover Tenišev, one of the most fruitful Turcologists
working on modern languages, wrote only one more paper on Old
Turkic (in 1971, proposing an explanation for the replacement of š by S
in the runiform inscriptions). Research in this domain was taken up by
other
òPóÆôõöcSoviet
÷ùøúûúscholars
øübý]úþ%ÿin
$÷the late fifties; we find
ü¶þ ú
ø'ÿø òPóÆôpapers
õô þ ú by óÆV.M.
ô
Nasilov
øú
government of derived and analytical verb forms), D.M. Nasilov (1960
on periphrastic modal constructions and 1966 on the form in -yOk),
M.Š. Širalijev (1960 on the etymology of the gerund suffix -XbAn),
V.G. Kondrat’ev (1961 on the function of the form in -dOk in runiform
sources) and Šukurov (1965 on the form in -gAlIr). Axmetov 1969,
finally, deals with the whole verbal system of the runiform inscriptions.
All this work, we find, is related to morphology and grammatical
categories. Then we have Ajdarov 1969 on auxiliary words in the
Orkhon inscriptions. Borovkova 1966 broached a phonological topic
with her paper on the labial consonants in Qarakhanid Turkic.
Scientific discussions taking place in the West were, in those years,
mainly concerned with vowels. The discussions around /e/ and around
the ‘connective vowels’ hypothesis which started rather early have
already been mentioned. One further vowel problem causing some stir
was the question of whether Old Turkic had long vowels; several
modern languages have such vowels in inherited Turkic stems and we
know that Proto-Turkic already had them, but evidence for Old Turkic
is uncertain. Cf. on this question Tuna 1960, Tekin 1967 and Tekin
1975 (reedition 1995a); the problem is discussed also in some general
treatises, e.g. in Zieme 1969. Another question concerns the nature of
vowels in non-first syllables: Are there the same number of phonemes
as in first syllables or are
ýthere a smaller number of ‘archphonemes’?
rÿÿþ!ÿ"#ø%$Ëý"&(')+*,3ü.- /1032
/46587:9+0
Does o/ö appear in non- o and ö
in non-first syllables allophones of other (high or low) vowels
appearing only after o or ö or are they phonemes? Cf. for this topic
Clauson 1962, K. Thomsen 1963, Clauson 1966 and Erdal 1996.
Clauson 1962 was of course also concerned with a number of other
aspects of the language, such as word structure, word formation etc.; in
a sense this is preparatory work for the EDPT. Clauson 1966, on the
28 CHAPTER ONE
other hand, again limits itself to phonological matters. Pritsak 1961 can
be be considered to be obsolete though still quoted in Johanson 1979.
Meyer 1965 discovered the rules which apply for the explicit spelling of
vowels in the Orkhon inscriptions, and partly also in other runiform
texts; more attention to this paper would have prevented many a misled
interpretation of those sources.
PhTF I, a handbook bringing together descriptions of most Turkic
languages, appeared in 1959. Gabain’s account of Old Turkic presented
there is basically a summary of the grammar in Gabain 1941;
;=<,>@?+A
B+C&D&EFAG:B+CHJIKHLMION,LM<,PH1I,BQC%>SR:<,B+<,TL<!>MU"VXW
Pritsak 1963, another
short account of the whole corpus, is quite undependable. To this day,
Gabain 1941 has remained the standard grammar of the language;46 it
reappeared, with a few additions and corrections, in 1950 and again in
1974. In Russia, meanwhile, short general descriptions of the corpuses
Y.Z,[+Z]\&[+Z#^6Z,_`1ZbadceKf]g hgjiMkbZ,[lcm!npo,q3r
sq3t
dealing with Old and Middle
Turkic as if these were a single language) and V.M. Nasilov (1961 on
the runiform inscriptions and 1963 on Uygur). Then came Ajdarov
1966 on the language of the Köl Tegin inscription and Kondrat’ev 1970
on the whole Old Turkic corpus. Tekin 1968 and Ajdarov 1971 both
describe the language of the Orkhon inscriptions, while Kononov 1980
describes the runiform sources as a whole. Tekin’s work covers all
grammatical domains of this small corpus in structuralist exhaustive-
ness and also presents a full concordance of the lexicon including
proper names as well as new editions and translations of the texts.
Zieme 1969, which is highly authoritative but remains unpublished,
deals with the graphemics, the phonology and morphology (but not the
syntax) of the whole corpus of Manichæan sources (part of which he
published later). Concerning Qarakhanid there is a description of syntax
by Abduraxmanov (1967), of the verbal system by Ercilasun (1984);
Hac u"v,w]xyz&{&|F}~
x
}M||SJ&}+
,v,+}&Mv,+x"#x"
|"
bbz%}&yz&
Qarakhanid grammar. Erdal 1998a is the most recent and concise
description of the language of the whole Old Turkic corpus while
T.Tekin 2000 deals with the whole corpus of inscriptional and
manuscript runiform sources (and not only with the Orkhon
inscriptions, as its title would imply).
One question which has intrigued scientists and become the object of
numerous publications is the origin of the runiform script. Hypotheses
have stated either that it is of Semitic origin, that it comes from tribal
46 In spite of its name, this work deals not only with grammar and related matters but
also contains an anthology, a dictionary and a large bibliography also covering many
non-linguistic aspects of the early Turks’ world.
INTRODUCTION 29
the alternation ï- ~ yï- in Old Turkic: The author had shown in his work
on Khaladj that the phoneme /h/, which appears at the beginning of
words in that language, must have its source in Proto-Turkic, and that it
correlates with an unstable onset /y/ in Old Turkic. Here he proposes
that /h/ be read in these words also in Old Turkic. The fact that the
opposition between Proto-Turkic /r/ and /z/ is neutralized both in the
Chuvash-Bolgar branch of Turkic and in the Mongol words cor-
responding to Turkic lexical or gramatical units with /z/ has occupied
Altaistic research for some time. An apparently irregular alternation r ~
z exists also within Old Turkic, as described, among others, by T.Tekin
(various publications), Xelimskij 1986 and the OTWF.
A number of scholars, a.o. Röhrborn, Laut, Maue, Shö&÷øùûúJü and
Moriyasu, have in the last two decades dealt with the phonic shape of
Indic terms borrowed into Old Turkic; this reflects whether they came
over Chinese, Tokharian or Sogdian, showing the immediate source of
translations of Buddhist texts, the flow of cultural contacts and the
degree of Sanskrit erudition of the translators and scribes.
Tekin 1965 on oblique clauses and Poppe 1966 on nominal phrases and
nominal compounds; this latter is the topic also of Adams 1981 and
Röhrborn 1987. Both Adams and Kayra 1994, who deals with
adjectives and adjective phrases, limit their paper to the Orkhon inscrip-
tions; by far the greatest volume of linguistic and philological research
has been carried out on this group of texts, although it constitutes only a
minute fraction of Old Turkic sources. Uygur uses the suffix +lXg to
form nominal phrases with metaphorical content. These structures were
first described by Erdal 1976; in 1981 this description was presented at
a symposium organised by C. Röhrborn, who published only a greatly
abbreviated version of the paper in 1982. Röhrborn himself dealt with
the same topic in the 1980 volume of MT, which came out in 1983
(Röhrborn 1983b). The 1976/1981 text finally appeared in print as part
of OTWF. Röhrborn 1983a is about the syntactic behaviour of Indic
loans. Nigmatov 1975 describes the semantic and syntactic functions of
Qarakhanid case forms.
L ;M<N$#9*
O)5?&*
P1;KQ7R?&2*
AST&A-U)>, ->%&-7:/)M5V7'#W6ST1AX 7!;7R?ZY\[!][!^!_V%)M;&
Since the beginnings of research into Old Turkic it was clear that there
are a lot of similarities and also some dissimilarities between the
language of the different corpuses mentioned in section 1.2. Gradually
it also became clear that there were some differences within these
corpuses, both among classes of Uygur texts and among runiform
inscriptions, whether due to dialect, historical development, different
sources or style. Bang & Gabain wrote in 1929 in a note to TT I 151-
152 that there are dialects within Uygur: Referring to what they read as
the diminutives ašnukïna and amtïkïna in that passage, they state that
earlier Old Turkic ñ became n in Manichæan texts which, as they
thought, were mostly written by Oguz Turks, but y in most other,
mainly Buddhist texts.47 In the n. to l. 1826 of her ‘Briefe der
uigurischen Hüentsang-Biographie’, which appeared in 1938 (p p. 367-
369 in SEddT-F), Gabain set out her views on this topic in greater detail
and with a number of characteristics: She now distinguished three
dialects, the n dialect, the y dialect (for the distinction of which she
adduced further criteria) and the d uMv8wx yz|{}|z>~xT|~4
v !uv
short list of sources said to belong to the n dialect. She rightfully
stressed that the dialects mix these characteristics (a point also made by
Hazai & Zieme 1970: 132, Gabain 1974: 3-8, Schulz 1978: XIII-XVII
and Laut 1986: 61), but thought that they predominate one way or the
other in all texts, making classification into the two groups possible.
Recent discussion on the question of Uygur dialects was initiated by
Zieme 1969: 173-182 (published with slight alterations as the second
part of Hazai & Zieme 1970), who gives detailed information on all
(published and at that time as yet unpublished) Manichæan sources
available to him concerning a number of points and lists some linguistic
criteria likely to distinguish between dialects as found in mss. clusters.
Batmanov 1971 tries to find correlations between Old Turkic dialects
and modern Turkic languages; in this connection it may be mentioned
that Doerfer 1975-76 and 1975-76a state the language of the Orkhon
inscriptions to be the earliest stage of Oguz Turkic. In the EDPT
Clauson (1972; xiii ff.) distinguished between “Türkü”, which he
47 The question of the development of early Old Turkic /ñ/ is taken up in section 2.33.
There is a contradiction in Bang & Gabain’s statement on TT I as this text is not, in fact,
Manichæan. In the UW, these instances are reinterpreted as instrumental case forms of
+kIyA, i.e. ašnuk(ï)yan and amtïkïyan respectively, while Röhrborn 1981-82: 298 reads
ašnukï and amtïkï . That some Manichæan texts show similarities with the language
of the runiform inscriptions had already been noticed by W. Radloff in 1908.
34 CHAPTER ONE
chosen for the sake of poetical form are, in fact, real regressive and
progressive variants which can be taken to have both existed one beside
the other in spoken language.
Important contributions on the history of the Buddhist Uygur corpus
came from !8E\8 |¡6£¢:¡@¤ ¥B>jZ¢¦T8§>§¤ ¨
§ª©£R¨:«!¬®
Buddhist texts which were linguistically close to Manichæan sources
had Buddhist terminology in Sogdian rather than in Tokharian garb, i.e.
that there was a correlation between the path of borrowing and the
linguistic shape of the Old Turkic texts themselves, and from Röhrborn
¯°±!8EG²:«R>¤j¢¬¤8§M§M³N!®U¯R´R¡@¤8§>¢µ¢µ§R¡:³¤R¢|+³¬¨¤ -
classical texts together with the frequent omission of these vowels
meant that they were pronounced short. This hypothesis (which seems
plausible) is quite distinct from the ‘helping vowels’ hypothesis, as it
does not refer only to suffix vowels, and not only to fourfold harmony
vowels (which are not, after all, the only ones affected). Maue &
Röhrborn 1984-85: Teil II 77-79 stated that differences conceived of as
being dialectal in fact represent different stages of development. On a
distinction between pre-classical and classical Buddhist Uygur texts
based on orthography, types of loan words and some less linguistic
criteria see especially Laut 1985 and 1986: 59-88. These interpret some
distinctive characteristics of Zieme 1969 and Erdal 1979 as well as one
or two others as indications of language change and not of dialects. Laut
embedded his ideas in history: It was the Sogdians who first introduced
the Turks to Buddhism in the 6th century.48 Those who, in the second
half of the 8th century, not only brought Manichæism to the Uygur
Turks when they still had their steppe empire in Mongolia, but also got
them into adopting this as their state religion and had the first texts
translated were also Sogdians. More recently, Moriyasu has come up
with a tripartite chronological classification of mss. based on Uygur
paleography. As proven by Moriyasu 1990, the Uygurs were actually
converted to Buddhism through the efforts of Chinese and Tokharians
when, vanquished by the Kïrgïz in 840, they moved into the Tarim
basin and got into intensive contact with the Tokharians; all major early
Uygur Buddhist texts are translations from Tokharian.
Doerfer 1993 combined 30 different criteria but simplifies and distorts
matters a little; cf. the reviews of Tekin 1994 and Zieme 1994. New
research taking numerous texts published during the last decade into
consideration as well as the theories of the 1980s (which Doerfer did
only to a limited extent) would be highly welcome.
CHAPTER TWO
2.1. Graphemics
49 Tables showing the actual letters can be found in all the other handbooks dealing
with Old Turkic.
50 One of the three QB mss. is in Uygur writing; this is the latest among the mss.,
however, and there now seems to be no doubt that it is a secondary transcription.
51 There also are a few Uygur seal imprints and one economical text in ’Phags-pa, a
38 CHAPTER TWO
The sources which use Indic scripts are of great linguistic value, how-
ever, as these scripts are highly explicit in their rendering of vowels.
The original Turkic script is the one here named ‘runiform’; it was at
first named ‘runic’ because it was thought to be akin to the Germanic
runes before it was deciphered. Some of its characters look similar to
ones found in early Semitic alphabets; this makes it likely that some
such script (one used, for instance, in the Caucasus, where Turkic
presence appears to have been quite early as well) was known to its
creator(s). The inconsistencies and complications of the runiform script
in the voiceless sibilant domain also strongly remind us of the Semitic
languages. On the other hand, the fact that the vowels [a] or [ä] can be
implicitly understood to be present throughout the word (though not at
its end) when nothing is written explicitly are something which we
know from Indic systems. However, the appearance of all other vowels
in non-first syllables is also left implicit, if they are preceded by a
vowel of the same class of backness / frontness and roundedness
(though not necessarily equal in height).52 The runiform system is
certainly not one of aks D .53 It is not a syllabic system either, as some
have maintained,54 although some characters have been transliterated as
w
k or as ïk: These signs (to limit oneself here to these examples) cannot
be interpreted only as signalling ‘uvular k preceded by o or u’ or ‘uvular
k preceded by ï’ respectively, since the vowel whose presence they
imply can also follow them. Moreover, they can also be separated from
this vowel by /l/ or /r/; thus e.g. yïl+ka is spelled as y1I1ïk1A in Tariat
E9, S1, 2, 3 and 5 and W2. Similarly, the well-known körk+lüg should
in IrqB 18 and 64 not be read as ‘körüklüg’ just because it is spelled
with the "wk ligature; nor should Türk, attested since early times in very
writing system akin to the Tibetan one, invented for writing Mongolian; cf. Zieme 1998.
52 Doerfer in several places (also e.g. 1993: 119) states that whatever is implicit in
runiform sources is either a / ä or aD e ¢¡D£¤¦¥,¤¦¥,¤¨§ª©««L¬®¢©"§«L¯u° ith his view that /X/ was
originally realised not as /ï i u ü o ö/ but as / a e±²³´^µb¶^·¸º¹»¼½x¾$¿ºÀ¿ºÁ»= ¹D¦õ½x¹D½µÄ ŲÇÆȲD½Á
/X/ that remain implicit, but any vowel preceded by another vowel of its own class:
yükündür- in KT E2 and BQ E3 or sökür- in KT E18 and BQ E16 are both spelled with
only the first of their vowels made explicit, e.g., although the causative suffixes have
the shape -dUr- and -Ur- respectively. See more on this below.
53 An aksÉ ÊË#Ê is a unit of writing of the numerous Indic alphabets. It consists of any
consonant cluster (even one whose consonants belong to different syllables, e.g. tp, cch
or ntr) + any subsequent vowel (including nasalised vowels and syllabic sonants).
54 E.g. Johanson 2001: 1724b. The table in T.Tekin 2000: 23 gives three characters the
readings baš, däm and kïš respectively; the first of these has, e.g., been read in Taryat
N3 (twice) and 4. All these are rather arbitrary proposals and seem unlikely. See Erdal
2002: 64 footn. 38 for ‘däm’, which is probably merely a variant of d2.
PHONOLOGY 39
55 "w
Ms. Mz 386 (TM 333) r2-3 has another instance of körk spelled with k after the
/r/, wrongly written as k2 in P. Zieme’s reedition of the fragment in ‘A Manichæan -
Turkic dispute ...’ p.217. The word in r1 of the same fragment cannot, h owever, be read
"
as ‘körüksüz’ and be translated as “ugly”: What the ms. has is not k2"wr2"wk2s2wz, as
"
both Zieme and Sertkaya before him write, but b2"wr2"wk2s2wz; the first character is a bit
damaged but can clearly be seen to be b2.
56 A more correct term widely used in Russian Turcology for what is usually (and
often in this work as well) called vowel harmony. Harmony does not affect only vowels
but consonants as well (though writing systems used for the Turkic languages reflect
this fact less than they might).
57 y is a palatal consonant, which sometimes fronts vowels beside it. The fact that the
system provides for a back [y] shows that it is necessarily not meant to serve phonetics
only, but also the characterisation of syllables as functioning in supra-segmental
(morpho-)phonological context.
40 CHAPTER TWO
the consonants, e.g. the Greek alphabet and the ones descended from it
or the Germanic runes; 2) aksÍ ara systems, in which signs for
consonants (or even consonant clusters) are kernels around which
vowel (or other) signs are obligatorily clustered, in Indian or Ethiopian
alphabets; finally, 3), systems in which the writing of a consonant also
implies the presence of a vowel beside it, though vowels can also,
optionally, be expressed explicitly. Such implicit vowels follow the
consonant in systems used for writing Semitic or Indic languages, the
character for t also being used to note sound sequences such as ta or ti;
the runiform system is alone in this third group in implying preceding
vowels, such as at or ut, when merely writing t and not vowels
folowing the consonant. This trait of the runiform system is
incompatible also with the root principle in the lexicon, characteristic
both of Semitic and early Indo-European. All coda vowels, on the other
hand, are written out as separate characters (again unlike the Semitic
and Indic systems).
d) A binary distinction of non-nasal consonants at each point of
articulation, whether it be called voiced vs. voiceless, strident vs.
mellow or stop vs. continuant etc.; most of early Indo-European has a
threefold system, Sanskrit a fourfold one and Semitic as well as
Caucasian languages have even more complex distinctions. Such
characteristics might also be connected with other Altaic languages or
with Uralic, but not a single inscription or ms. has as yet been found to
bear a runiform text in any of those languages.58
e) Such signs as y1, which looks like the half full moon (ay), wk,
which looks like an arrow (ok) or b2, which has the shape of a tent
(äb/äv ‘house, home’) seem to have an ideogrammatic background in
Turkic (and not, e.g., in Mongolic).
f) The fact that the runiform alphabet was put to popular use in a vast
area (including quite remote Siberian regions) coinciding with the
roaming grounds of the early Turks, and not outside them, would
equally speak for an original creation; the Tangut and Qïtañ, e.g., have
also invented their own writing systems.
Although the runiform script is thus likely to have been devised by
Turkic groups, the Türk empires which formed in Mongolia probably
first used the Sogdian–Uygur alphabet, because they were introduced to
sedentary civilisation by the Sogdians.59 The use of the runiform script
58 A few runiform ms. texts are in Middle Iranian languages; they were apparently
written by Manichæan Uygurs.
59 See e.g. Laut 1986: 5-7. The first draft of the Orkhon inscriptions may also have
been written in Sogdian–Uygur script: In KT N7 (though not in the parallel passage BQ
PHONOLOGY 41
E31, which was put to writing some time later) we find the passage bir uguš alpagu on
ärig, which must be an error for bir uguš alpagut ärig as 1) bir uguš is a quantifier
which makes on ‘ten’ superfluous, 2) a numeral should not stand after a noun and 3) alp
and alp+agut are attested but a collective alp+agu is not and would not suit the context.
on and t look quite different in runiform script but could look identical in Sogdian–
Uygur writing, and mistaking one for the other could have caused the error. The
sentence is interpreted and translated in section 4.631.
60 E.g. the editor of TT X on p.9 of her edition.
42 CHAPTER TWO
61 In mss. in cursive writing double and single alef are not always distinguishable.
Onset /a/ is in a part of the lexemes spelled with a single alef if two consonants follow,
e.g. in alp (with alplan- but not alpagut, alpal- or alpïrkan-), amra- (with amran-,
amrak, amraksïz, amran ïg, amraš-, amrat-), amrïk-, amrïl-, amru, amtï, arslan (but not
arslanlïg), artok (beside the variant with two alifs), ¢¡£ and artut. This does not
happen if the second consonant belongs to a suffix, as in £ -mak, and hardly ever if the
consonants become adjacent through syncopation, as with adr-ïl- or adr-ok. ¤¥§¦¤¨7©
aldïrtï, alk-, alka- (with a single alef in a few early instances of the verb and of
alkatmïš, alkïn¦Fª and alkïš), alkïg, alku and almïr are, however, spelled with two alifs.
62 In Arabic writing, e.g., a is distinguished from i but o is not distinguished from u; in
general, alif serves as mater lectionis for low unrounded, y« ’ for high unrounded
vowels, but there is only one mater lectionis (¬®¬ ) for all rounded vowels.
PHONOLOGY 43
was used for the same dialect as Uygur script, which of course must
åæUç"èéç"æêëè<ìí0ç"èêvîAë4ïèæðìañò"æ<óè
ô
õLöí÷MêøåCïù ú%ûUü
úýWþCÿSÿ
-
. % ('/)!*,+
) 10 / 2"3465.7489 ) , 27
glosses
ÿ ûUú
or aksaras into ý
mss. in the
latter.
úAþú Uú û û <û
Wherever
ý
ac word
û
is attested =iný
û û =ý
its pronunciation is concerned: Since, e.g., the word coming from Skt.
abhis: ;/<= over Tokharian A and B abhis>?;< is in TT VIII D17 spelled as
abišik, this is what we adopt (as against abišek in the UW). The scribe
did, after all, have the possibility of writing e in the last syllable.64
@A
[ï] is spelled with d in all scripts of Semitic origin which were used
for writing Old Turkic, except that we sometimes find it spelled with
alef in a number of pre-classical texts (see section 1.2 above), e.g. in
yalanlar (MaitH XX 1r19) which stands for yalïnlar ‘flames’ or , in a
Manichæan text, kap-ap ‘snatching’ (DreiPrinz 49). This apparently
happens in Sogdian and Uygur writing more often than in Manichæan
writing; there is no collocational limitation for this spelling. Since alef
in non-first syllables represents [a], a vowel unrounded and posterior
like [ï], whereas [i] is unlike [ï] in being fronted, this could be a mainly
graphic fluctuation, reflecting the intermediate nature of [ï]. In no text is
/ï/ generally spelled with alef, the most common spelling of [ï] being
BAC in all sources. Since, however, there are also some instances of alef
for [i], e.g. käl+äp and äšid+äp (quoted in the next paragraph), ig+säz
‘healthy’ in ChristManMsFr ManFr r9, ärdäm+imäz ‘our virtue’ in
Mait or the instrumental form siziks(i)zän ‘doubtlessly’ in TT VI 305,
the phenomenon cannot be merely graphic but must also have a
phonetic aspect.65 Another matter with less phonic relevance is the non-
66 Gabain 1941: 54 thinks that voiceless consonants may have become voiced between
vowels, as happens in the Northern Turkic languages today. This is unlikely, since
devoicing, the opposite process, is attested in this position just as commonly; a few
examples for that are supplied by Prof. Gabain herself on the same page.
67 Late Uygur mss. were mostly written down under Mongol rule. In Classical Mon-
golian, which also uses the Uygur script, the two dots mark back /g/ and not back /k/.
68 The edition’ s tipü, and blgülügü in the previous word, are misreadings. Similar
mistakes are found in Fedakâr.
PHONOLOGY 45
T II D (U 268) r10 and r16 respectively all spelled with double final K
and P. The double spelling of letters to fill the end of a line can also be
found in Buddhist mss. e.g. with additional W after bo ‘this’ and yügärü
‘facing’ or additional R after agïr ‘heavy’ in TT X 232, 285 and 299
respectively. Note that it here comprises letters representing vowels and
not only consonants.
When y is in the word onset followed by a front rounded vowel, mss.
in Uygur script normally spell this vowel as if it belonged to the back
series; e.g. in yörüg ‘interpretation’, yükün- ‘to bow to someone’, yüräk
‘heart’, yüz ‘face’ and ‘hundred’ or yügür- ‘to run’. There are a few
other words with front rounded vowels in the first syllable which also
spell this vowel as W and not as WY, such as kö |!}!~
‘heart’ or (e.g. in
TT X 440) kög ‘music’. The habit of spelling front rounded vowels as
WY may have come up gradually, as P#
-less spellings for front vowels
are much more wide-spread in pre-classical texts than in classical and
late mss.. The front variant of the particle Ok, which is not a fully
independent word, is also spelled without a Y, although it normally has
a space before it.
Further spelling characteristics are discussed in sections 2.2 and 2.3.
69 This matter has to do with the genetic comparison of the Turkic languages and is
outside the scope of the present work.
70 ‘In principle’ because of a tendency to prefer /i/ to /ï/ as realisation of /I/, because
suffixes show back synharmonism with borrowed bases also when their last syllable
clearly is in the front class and perhaps some other factors.
46 CHAPTER TWO
The distinction between original 8 long and 8 short vowels can be very
well reconstructed for first stem vowels; it is today retained to a very
large extent in Yakut, Turkmen and Khaladj and has left traces and
reflexes in a number of other Turkic languages. The most recent and
extensive treatment of primary vowel length in first syllables (to where
it may originally have been limited) in the modern and historical Turkic
languages is T.Tekin 1995a, which also recounts the history of research
of this aspect of Turkic vocalism.71 Unfortunately the author did not
include in it a recapitulation of his 1967 paper, which shows that
original Turkic long vowels function as long also for the purposes of
the N
#
metre of the QB, the 11th century Qarakhanid poem of more
than 6000 verses, consistently with the theory that the Proto-Turkic
long vowels were preserved in its language. The DLT also appears to
make the right distinctions between vowels written only with diacritical
vowel signs and those spelled with matres lectionis ( and , zf $ N P
which are the signs of vowel length in the Arabic writing system),
especially where a word serves as an entry for itself and is not quoted in
a sentence intended to illustrate the use of some other lexeme; this
evidence was last brought together in Tekin 1995: 97-113. All in all,
138z${,f2!!7 8¡/¢9£¡$¢N¥¤¦/§¨,©¥ª «N¡ ¬ f®°¯z±8²³4´$µ1¶·!³4¸#¹º{»¸9¼´³®
vowel length as documented in Qarakhanid sourccs accords well with
71 This work is a good base for research in which most of the documentation is
brought together. Its weakness concerning written documentation is that any sign that a
word contains a long vowel is taken at face value and considered conclusive even if the
word is, on other occasions, written short; moreover, Tekin trusts a source’s evidence
also when it writes a vowel as long although no modern language testifies to this,
sometimes when even he himself considers it to have been short in Proto-Turkic.
PHONOLOGY 47
72 As Kelly 1973: 156f., who quotes and comments the passage, remarks, this refers to
Uygur writing, where vowel letters do not drop when the vowel is no longer long. This
paper is an important contribution to the question of vowel length in Qarakhanid.
73 1 r5 of the edition of TM 342 (followed by Tekin 1995a: 91) writes the verb yarat-
as if it had an explicit A in the first syllable, but the perfectly clear facs. shows this not
to be the case. No Turkic language has yarat- with a long first-syllable vowel.
74 Other mss. are more problematic: TM 326, e.g., shows sa:v ‘speech’, whose vowel
is known to be long from elsewhere, with A, but also spells sat- ‘to sell’, which
probably had a short vowel, with A as well. The proverb collection reedited by
Hamilton and Bazin in Turcica 4-5: 25ff. writes the as in tanuk and tamga with A
although they are short in the Turkic languages which retain length.
48 CHAPTER TWO
when the word starts with this vowel. This is not the case, as shown by
the spelling of $&%' .
In Uygur mss. in both the Manichæan and (much more numerously,
naturally) the Uygur script we find that vowels are sometimes written
doubly. Scholars have tried to interpret this in two ways. It was stated
in the notes to U II 23,14 and 39,89 and then by Zieme 1969: 32 (and
cf. Meyer 1965: 190 n.19) that these spellings may be an attempt to
distinguish /o/ and /ö/ from /u/ and /ü/. The fact is that most instances
represent rounded vowels: There are no aas,75 as two alifs are
interpreted as [a] as opposed to [ä] and there never come more than two
in a row; there is one single word spelled ïï76 and there are few words
spelled with ii (to which we return below). Zieme quotes a number of
instances of /o/ and /ö/ written doubly, giving place references.77
Others, on the other hand, have said that such repetitions are meant to
be read as long vowels: This was the opinion of Gabain 1941 §16 (who
also
(*)+,.quotes
-0/21 354 aksome of the instances), Tuna 1960: 247-252, Pritsak 1963
1961: 34-36 and 1966: 153-154 and Tekin (1975) 1995a:
75 Tekin 1995a: 92 misunderstood the n. to M III 17, which says that ät ‘flesh, meat’ is
sometimes spelled as at, and does not refer to at ‘name’.
76 Rather common, signifying ‘plant’ and possibly with a long vowel like all
monsyllabic lexeme stems of the shape CV; the first vowel of its derivate ï+ga is short, 6
however.
77 He gives booš ‘empty’, boo ‘this’, noom ‘teaching’, ool ‘that’, oon ‘ten’, oot ‘fire’
and ‘grass’, 7798;:9<
ï ‘healer’, soorgun ‘a plant’, ooz- ‘to prevail’, toog ‘dust’ from
Manichæan, booš ‘empty’, noomla- ‘to preach’, ool ‘that’, koog ‘atom’, oot ‘fire’, kool
‘arm’, kooš ‘a pair’, toor ‘net’, tooz ‘dust’, öö- ‘to remember’ =9=?>
‘revenge’, - ‘to @9@?ACB
take revenge’, söö ‘a long time’ from other sources; /ö/ is here spelled as WYW.
PHONOLOGY 49
91-94. Thus e.g. uu ‘sleep’ in Abhi (a rather late text) 511, 514 and 516
and D
DFE GDH ‘endless’ seven times in Abhi, both words with vowel
length. The double spelling of vowels is especially regular in some
Chinese borrowings such as ‘dragon’ (spelled LWW), ‘army’ and
‘preface’ (both spelled SWW), ‘women’s quarters’ (spelled KWWN)
etc.; this phenomenon should be separated from the double spellings of
Turkic words: In these cases the spelling may also indicate diphthongs
([uo, üö]), and in any case touches upon the pronunciation of the
Chinese dialect which served the Uygurs as contact language. The word
signifying ‘preface’ (in this book transcribed as swö) appears with +sI
in HTs VII 18 but with the accusative suffix +üg in HTs VII 306,
perhaps indicating that a pronunciation as süw was an option. Leaving
these instances aside, we find that there are numerous counter-examples
for both hypotheses: uu ‘sleep’ (spelled as uv in U III 11,8, but gets the
possessive suffix as +sI), DDE ‘tip, border, edge’, uutun ‘vile, insolent’
and yuul ‘spring, fountain’ (e.g. in HTs, BT III and Suv) are, together
with their derivates, some of the more common words spelled with WW
which have high back rounded vowels.78 tooz ‘beech bark’, koor
‘embers’, tuuš ‘counterpart’, uuz ‘expert’, yüüz ‘face’ are among the
lexemes with long vowels attested with double W and not mentioned by
Zieme. On the other hand, some of the stems attested with double
vowels, e.g. ok ‘arrow’, ol ‘that’, ot ‘grass’, kol ‘arm’, tor ‘net’, oz- ‘to
prevail’ or ul ‘sole’, have short vowels in Turkmen, Yakut etc. and
presumably had them in Proto-Turkic as well. The word for ‘wind’ is
often spelled as YYYL although its vowel is short in the modern
languages; it might, perhaps, have been pronounced with a diphthong,
yiel.79 The general impression, after looking at quite some texts, is that
double spelling tends to occur more with /o/ than with other vowels,
and more with long vowels than with short ones, but that it is not all too
common in general, single spelling being more common for all words
mentioned; some lexemes (with long or short vowels) tend to be more
prone to this phenomenon than others.
The ability of some scripts of Indian origin to distinguish between
long and short a, i and u is not put to any discernably systematic use;
78 Examples quoted in Tekin 1995a: 93. uut+suz ‘shameless’ (U II 86,40), also quoted
there, is a different case: It is clearly a contraction of the well-attested uvut, which has
the same meaning. Oguz utan- ‘to feel shy’ is mentioned already in the DLT; the fact
that this verb still has a /t/ in Turkish shows that it is not in the same class as the other
long vowels (which get followed by /d/).
79 yäm, which is used for äm in U I 7 (Magier), may also stand for some such
diphthong as iäm.
50 CHAPTER TWO
least of all the BuddhKat with its Tibetan script. Tekin 1995a: 94-96
limited his research on this matter to TT VIII and lists only those cases
where a vowel spelled as long correlates with a vowel he expects to be
long; the opposite case is mentioned only with a few examples: He does
admit, though, that it happens that long vowels are spelled as short and
IJ&KLMI0LONQPQRFSUT0LLVR2WPQXZY[R \L^]9__
`bacdcefgXhNij0LlkmNn jop.qNRKirJ&KLsJut
general. For i, the distinction is rare even in Sanskrit portions of the
mss.; for a and u there appears to be free alternation between the signs
for short and for long vowels. In the Uygur-Khotanese word list the
character v expresses [o] and [ö] and there is no correlation with
comparative length at all. Either the language no longer kept up the
Proto-Turkic length distinction when the Indian scripts came into use
for Uygur (in the 10th century?), or the Central Asian linguistic filters,
through which the scripts went before reaching Turkic, had made the
distinction into a purely orthographical (i.e. not phonetic) one or into
one distinguishing certain qualities of the vowels but not their length.
Transcribing inscriptional or Uygur texts as if their language
consistently distinguished between long and short vowels (as done e.g.
in the glossary of BT III) therefore seems misleading.
The nine vowel phonemes left after distinctive vowel length was given
up were /a/, /ä/, /ï/, /i/, /o/, /ö/, /u/ and /ü/ plus the phoneme /e/. As
shown by Thomsen Hansen 1957, the last-mentioned came from Proto-
Turkic long */ä:/ (especially in the first syllable). The opposition
between /a/ anwdx n x PQL2L oUPyiXz0L{Pgi|JWW w X
K \oL tFi|L w J}tLRONCW~W w \N50J&Kz\Fi
that between the six other long vowels and their ‚normal‘ counterparts
appear to have disappeared already by our earliest texts.
The opposition */ä:/ > /e/ vs. /ä/ was, however, retained, apparently
because it involved an opposition in vowel quality as well, disrupting
the three-dimensional close-knit structure of the original vowel system.
Saving this cube structure appears to have been Bazin‘s only motive for
not recognising /e/ as an Old Turkic phoneme, a view approvingly
quoted by Zieme 1969: 33.80 Zieme 1969 expressed disbelief in the
phoneme /e/ as distinct from /ä/, though he did admit the reality of the
sound [e] and mentions phonemic oppositions such as älig ‚hand; fifty‘
vs. elig ‚king‘; cf. also et- ‚to arrange‘ vs. ät- ‚to emit a sound‘. /e/ did,
in fact, stay distinct from both /i/ and /ä/; its early existence in first
80 Zieme has, of course, changed his view quite some time ago, but Johanson 2001:
1723a still thinks that it is “kontrovers ... ob dem ä ein höheres e gegenüberstand”.
PHONOLOGY 51
school (the tradition going from Müller and Le Coq through Bang,
Gabain and Zieme, corrected in recent years) of spelling /e/ as i is
unjustified: The distinction between o and u, e.g., is based on just such
evidence as that between e and i (and stands, in a few cases, on just as
shaky legs). We may not always be completely sure, but the informed
guess founded on as much information as possible must be made. Some
South Siberian runiform inscriptions even have a special character for e
(whereas other inscriptions from that area have instead a letter for ä
which distinguishes that phoneme from both a and i). The fluctuation
referred to turns up also with a few instances of Proto-Turkic *ä
appearing adjacent to /y/: The (apparently rather early) change yä > ye
created additional /e/s which were not (originally) long, perhaps e.g. in
yet- ‘to suffice’. 83 This is a simple case of assimilation (still taking
place in Azeri, which still has the nine vowel system). Orkhon Turkic
fluctuation should not be confused with one or two cases where there
appears to be a dialect variation between /ä/ and /i/: There is, in Old
Turkic,
ÏÑÐ5ÒFÓ0ÔhÕ×Öyboth
ØÐgÒ0Ù&ÚäkiÚÔFÕ°and
ÛµÙÛgÜ|Ý iki
ÕFÜ|Þßׂtwo‘,
Ó0àÛá|âbut
áãØÜmthis
ÛQÔhØ
word
ÐÚÝÛdÙuÕ¨probably
ämÐCå ÓæçèàOhad
Õ0éêÖnoÙ}ã0Ý/e/:
Üà Õ
writing have numerous examples with i (not e). Manichæan texts
fluctuate (there is, e.g., äkigün ‘as a pair’ and äkinti ‘second’ in M III
14,61 and 15,171 respectively) while non-Manichæan sources in Uygur
script consistently have ’Y . Much evidence concerning the spelling of
Old Turkic (and not only inscriptional, in spite of its title) /e/ has been
brought together by Doerfer 1994.
Some scholars, e.g. Pritsak 1961: 32 and 1963: 52, denied that there is
an opposition /i/ : /ï/ in Old Turkic; cf. also Johanson 1993: 87 and
Röhrborn 1996: 181f.84 In original Turkic words the opposition can of
predominates in the former, I in the latter; he also found that, among the inscriptions of
the Uygur steppe empire, Tariat and Tes follow the older, ŠU the newer tradition.
83 After original long vowels, voiceless consonants become voiced in Turkish when
they appear between vowels; this does not, however, happen in the aorist form yet-er
(unlike yedek < yet- ‘to lead on’, which was originally applied to a horse one led with
oneself to mount when the horse one was riding got tired). The sequence #yä no longer
exists in Br ë ì9í îïð?ñòóôQïrõ
84 Röhrborn bases his opinion on evidence from the rules of rote rhyme (which serves
as base for Old Turkic verse and makes stanzas accord in their beginning and not in
their end), stating that ï° and i° are made to rhyme. However, ï° not only rhymes with i°
but also with e°; o° rhymes with u° and ö° with ü° and even na° (in nayrag ‘Buddha’s
characteristic mark’) with a°: Old Turkic clearly followed eye rhyme (as opposed to ear
PHONOLOGY 53
rhyme), which was in use in Ottoman verse as well: The rhyme was visual and not audi-
tive; since o and u look alike in Uygur and Manichæan writing, the two (and similarly
the members of the other sets) were made to ‘rhyme’. If, therefore, p° of foreign words
is considered to alliterate with b°, this should not be considered evidence for absence of
any phonic difference. Rote rhyme therefore cannot help us solve this problem.
85 DLT and base of the common verb kizlä-.
86 The y in yilkä- in UigPañc 66 and 88 (with normal metathesis and loss of /r/ before
/k/) must be a reflex of that. Nor would ïrkla-, which is an ad-hoc derivate from ïrk
‘omen’, be prone to such phonetic processes.
87 There is no reason for this verb to have had a long vowel as it does not have one in
modern languages; the EDPT ascription of vowel length is apparently based on the
spelling in some of the DLT instances, which are influenced by Arabic word patterns.
54 CHAPTER TWO
tï:t- ‘to tear to shreds’ (and tït ‘larch tree’ 88) vs. tit- ‘to renounce’, and
ïl- ‘to descend’ vs. i:l- ‘to catch, cling, attach’; the last mentioned verb
in fact originally started with an /h/, as the numerous examples with
#y°89 show. Johanson 1991: 85 gives the DLT opposition il- : ïl- as an
example for the reality of the front / back distinction in Qarakhanid.
øúùû üFýOþ ÿ
!#"%$&'#"%()*+*,%-.#"%-/0!12#
spelled with 35476 , that of the latter with 8476 , and that the former’s aorist
is ilär, the latter’s ïlur. The aorist distinction between the two verbs is
borne out also by the QB; not, however, the backness distinction; there,
both verbs are front: From the verb signifying ‘to descend’ we find ilgü
in QB 1086 (ms. AB; C replaces it with the better-known en-) and
ilmäk in 1762 (only C; A yïlmaq, B enmäk); the meanings$1 are clear in
<=>,%?@
both cases. Although, therefore, the grammarian K 9: ;
Ba; 9 A!BDCFE.CGBDCGHJILKMON#P%IRQ%C5SGT
U%IEVEWKMON#PIYX%I1HQZE[]\FU[]M7^_[U%\`aN KbAIEcSIGUAed#f
that no longer corresponded to Qarakhanid usage of his time, at least as
ghGijhFkml npoq%rms#outv/w%t5xGyw%xze{/|}%xv
~~%v%oss]v/w!
ï : i/ thus seems to be rather
linked to the presence of /k/ and /g/; we know that the front and back
realisations of /k/, transliterated as q and k respectively, are audibly
different in all Turkic languages, and should have been so in Old Turkic
as well. Note the runiform character ïq ~ qï, which is used for
representing voiceless velars specifically when they appear beside /ï/.
We might therefore consider following Dankoff & Kelly 1982: 61-62,
who dispense with /ï/ as a phoneme altogether, assuming a phonemic
distinction /k/ : /q/ (as e.g. in Arabic) instead, and complement it with
an opposition /g/ : / JR
F@
!DR
%
FL&#%&#%D
/%
*]
(#
not merely an underlying one, as e.g. in Classical Mongolian, where
there was no [ï] but only [i]? Because the Mongolian writing system
(coming from the Uygur script) always uses K and not X with /i/, the
opposition manifesting itself only in the synharmony of subsequent
syllables,90 whereas Old Turkic does distinguish between front and back
consonants also in the same syllable as these vowels. In the runiform
script this is the case not only with /k g/, as in the Semitic writing
88 The DLT spelling of this with as second letter could be due to Arabic triradical
word patterning.
89 I use the degree sign as a sign of abbreviation, as done in transcriptions of Sanskrit;
this means that there are further sounds to follow, that – in this case – this is /y/ at the
beginning of a word.
90 I mean the fact that the genitive of the 3rd person demonstrative, e.g., is inu and not
*inü. Even assuming genetic relationship between Turkic and Mongolic, however, the
situation in Mongolian cannot be used as an argument for believing in a neutral /i/ in
Proto-Turkic, as some other details make it likely that the opposition /i : ï/ was a real
one in Pre-classical Mongolian.
PHONOLOGY 55
91 /ï/ is more often spelled with alef in preclassical texts than /i/. Scholars have
confused ï:š ‘work’ with eš ‘debt’, the two lexemes surviving in Yakut as i:s and iäs
respectively. What the runiform inscriptions have in a binome with kü¯ is eš ‘debt’ and
not ï:š ‘work’, which explains the front vocalism; cf. OTWF 456 (with n.55) for
additional details.
92 Clauson (EDPT 361) assumes that the instance is an error; this would have been
likely if the ms. had been in Manichæan writing, wher e G and ° have rather similar
shapes. As it is, we cannot simply ‘emend’ it away.
93 I take the original shape to have been *hï, in view of the fluctuations in the shape of
(y)ïga± ‘tree’, which probably was a derivate from this. There is no reason to ass ume
vowel length, as done by Clauson and Tekin, in spite of the spelling with two ²³µ´ in
Uygur.
PHONOLOGY 57
94 I disagree with T.Tekin 1995: 183 on this lexeme; the QB has it with both front and
back forms of the accusative.
95 Uygur does not itself raise vowels. We know that the Uygur vowel was /ï/ and not
/i/ because it is attested in the runiform Irq Bitig spelled with n1, the back N. I don’t
think Sogdian had i in the first syllable of this word, as that would have been spelled
with mater lectionis, i.e. Y.
58 CHAPTER TWO
language which the Turks mostly got into contact with when, most
numerously from the 9th century on, they streamed into the North
Eastern part of the Tarim basin, was Tokharian. The Tokharian schwa,
transliterated as ä, can, in certain circumstances, perhaps be stated to
have been less front than /i/ and higher than /a/; the Uygurs might
perhaps have assimilated it to their [ï]. It does not, in short, seem likely
that the languages which Uygurs can be presumed to have been
bilingual in would induce them to abandon their /ï/.
The contact situation could have been different in West Turkestan,
where Qarakhanid developed, especially when New Persian started to
be the lingua franca in the 10th century. In the DLT the opposition /ï : i/
in so far as it affects suffix harmony is retained approximately to the
same degree as in Uygur: Dankoff & Kelly 1982: 61 give a longer list
where original harmony exists and where stems consistently show back
or front vowel suffixes respectively, and a shorter list of stems with
fluctuations. Some of the fluctuations have already been mentioned, as
they reflect a situation found already in Uygur; others are due to errors
on the part of the editors96 or to the second hand which changed around
a lot in the ms.97
Most of the writing systems used for writing Old Turkic do not have a
special character for [ï] and generally use for it the same character as
for [i]. There is, however, one alphabet, not much used for writing this
language, with which a distinction does appear to be made: As stated
already by Gabain 1974: 391 (note 14), texts written in Tibetan script
do seem to make the difference, though the means are highly irregular.
This statement is largely corroborated by Maue & Röhrborn 1984:292-
4 for the Catechism, the relatively early and most important such text.
Another important feature speaking for the reality of /ï/ is the
alternation alef ~ ¼e½/¾ in non-first syllables, much more common in
back than in front synharmony, whether it be the mere graphemic
alternation described in section 2.1 or the phonetic lowering caused by
/g r l/, documented in section 2.402. These two phenomena, which gave
the same result but have a different distribution both in terms of sources
96 bi¿À&Á ‘knife’, e.g., attested in Uygur and the DLT, does not come from bï¿ - but is a
deminutive from bi: ‘knife’; the base of tišä- and its derivates is not identical with tï:š
‘tooth’.
97 The Middle Turkic ‘corrector’s’ work is well discernible by its diff erent ink. It
changed tizlä-mäk to tïzlamaq, e.g., whereas tiz ‘knee’ never had a back vowel. yid+i-
mäk ‘to be putrid, to stink’ is also by the second hand, while the first hand still wrote
yïdïmaq, reflecting original pronunciation. For yïlï-š- it was apparently the first hand
which wrote down both possibilities, both k à and q Äà , but then this stem has two palatal
consonants.
PHONOLOGY 59
The widespread view that the vowels serving as realizations of /X/ were
‘reduced’ (the graphemes ï and u ÅJÆGÇÅÆÈcÆGÉ
Ê+ËÉ%Ì!ÍaÎ Ï&ÐÑ#Ò5Ó7Ô%ÕWÖF×ØGÙÔ%ÕGÚ!ÕFÛ i and
ü ‘/ Ü ÝÞ#ßà#áZâãäå/âã%æçæpèDàãéácçê&ëà>å/ãíì5î ïïñðGòåFó%çô(õ/â%åFë çöáå/÷!çøðGâ
ë#ùå/úcáGÞ
thoughts on this matter. Most recently, Johanson 2001: 1725b has
expressed the view that the element “°” (as he calls it iconically) “in
phonetischer
ü
Hinsicht vermutlich ein schwa oder reduzierte Vokale (û ,
usw.) darstellte”. Vowels of the archphoneme /X/ are usually not
written explicitly in runiform texts; nor, however, are vowels of
suffixes containing other archphonemes if their realisations show the
same phonemes: e.g. /u/ in the suffix -gUr- (not ‘-gXr-’ ) of tur-gur-u
(Irk Bitig), where the previous syllable contains an /u/. Vowels of all
archphonemes can get syncopated in non-first non-last syllables (by no
means only /X/, as still maintained in Johanson 2001: 1723a), syllable
structure and consonant tactics permitting, e.g. /I/ in the stems of the
common ögr- ý/þÿ , ögr-ý/þ%ÿ5ý and ögr- þÿ5ý < ögir- or kürgäk < *küri-gäk,
/U/ in ärgür- < *ärü-gUr- ÿ
(DKPAMPb 70) < ÿ -Ur- or
šïšrun- < *sïš-Ur-Xn-; /A/ in ötl-üm < ötä-l- as discussed in OTWF 293,
tirgök < tirä- or targak from tara-.98 ört-, a variant of ör-it-, and yort-, a
variant of yorï-t-, also result from the syncopation of /I/. Syncopation is
well documented within stems (as described in section 2.403), before
and in derivational affixes and even perhaps within inflectional
suffixes. Onset vowels of enclitics (of any archphoneme) are elided
after vowels (e.g. iþÿ < þÿ
‘just this way’ in the runiform ms.
TM 342, 2 v2); so are suffix vowels in the coda if the next word starts
with a vowel (at least in verse, as poetic licence).
There appear to be no suffixes ending in /X/. This is, again, no proof
that /X/ was shorter than the other vowels. Nor is the fact that Mongolic
cognates of Turkic words often have a different additional vowel a
sufficient reason for assuming that that vowel can be attributed to
98 Low vowels are, however, less readily syncopated than high vowels, as shown by
lexemes such as yarašï, tä and yöläši.
60 CHAPTER TWO
Turkic. är ‘man’, e.g., does not necessarily come from *ärä only
because that form existed in Mongolic (to use the example given by
Johanson 2001: 1723a): Mongolic ärä may, e.g., have been copied from
the plural form är+än, the /n/ getting metanalysed through analogy
with Mongolic °n stems.99 Mongolian sa - ‘to milk’ does not go back
to Proto-Turkic !#"%$ - either, as assumed by Róna-Tas 1998: 72:
Mongolian ’X’ &('*)+',.-/0/0&21.3546
1879-:1;<&61>=?6@BA0C DFEG(H9I GKJLG.H.I#MON.P+Q8H.P
N9R G<J0STP
U
diachronic significance whatsoever is seen, among other indications, in
loan words such as ŠaVW8X Y<Z9[:\]DB^<_a`9UFJI8bdc:efM*IgSJhUS:i.jIkUlSP
UPmj0j0I:Un`oGnP5GpH9RJ2U
assumption of general coda syncopation, Johanson100 and Róna-Tas
think that ‘retained’ coda vowels (such as in kara ‘black’) must have
been long; there is no evidence for this claim.
Vowels (again not only /X/) appear to have gotten reduced by
adjacency to certain consonants. Spellings like t(ä)lgäk (M III Nr.4
v15), b(ä)lgülüg (M III Nr.4 r9) or k(ä)l- (DreiPrinz 25, 26, 28 and 29)
in early texts should probably be understood to show that /l/ could
‘swallow up’ the vowel, getting syllabic itself. The /l/ no doubt helped
in the reductions of näglük from nä+(A)gU+lXk in TT X 265,101 aglïk
‘treasure house, storehouse’ from agï+lïk in KP 7,5 and 8 and orla- <
orï+la-. Some other such phenomena are discussed in section 2.403.
The question of the quality of the vowels participating in the
archphoneme /X/ is a vexed one. In the vast majority of instances in
non-Indic alphabets they are spelled with Y, W or WY (or the runiform
character signalling a front rounded vowel) and not with ’ . In section
2.402 we show that /ï/ is lowered when adjacent to /r l/ and especially
/g/, so that it does come to be spelled with characters indicating a low
back unrounded vowel, and this in all stages of Old Turkic and in texts
of all spelling and cultural traditions. This is a clear conditioned
lowering of one vowel, which may be participating in /X/, in /I/ or may
not be assignable to any of the two. In section 2.1 I pointed out that it
was natural for /ï/ to sometimes be spelled like /a/ even when not
lowered: Y traditionally denotes /i/, and /ï/ is unrounded and back-
vowelled like /a/ though it also is unrounded and high like /i/. This only
happens in early texts, mostly but not necessarily Manichæan. These
99 Anatolian Turkic äränlär may show that ärän was, when left as the only plural form
ending in +An, taken to be a singular. A related process is connected with Turkic süt
‘milk’, which, by back -formation, became sün in Mongolic – because süt was felt to
contain the Mongolic plural suffix.
100 View expressed already in Johanson 1976: 145 quoting Ramstedt, Poppe and
Clauson.
101 I take the rather common nälük to be a further contraction from this form.
PHONOLOGY 61
two points are not sufficient for explaining all the facts, however, as
there also are Manichæan instances where /i/ is also spelled with alef.
Adjacency to /g r l/ does not predominate here, so that combinatory
lowering cannot be the explanation: Doerfer 1993: 121-125 lists102
elig+(i)mäz (M I 8,11, TeilBuch), ämgäk+(ä)mäzin (M I 11,19,
TeilBuch), käl-tämäz and (M I 10,12, TeilBuch) išlä-dämäz (M I 11,14,
TeilBuch) with +(X) q rtsvu , bägädmäk+äw9x uy x z#{ (DreiPrinz 66),
ärmäk+äw| u}h~ | (M III nr.27 r14) and iš+äw| uy x z#{ (M I 11,19,
TeilBuch) with +(X) w svu , elig+äg (DreiPrinz 94) and tämir+äg (M I
8,12, TeilBuch) with +(X)g, yüz+üw u |{ (M I 10,9, TeilBuch) with the
accusative ending after possessive suffixes, kiši+näw (M I 8,14 and 15,
TeilBuch), bäg+näw and yäklär+näw (U IVA 152 and 168) with +(n)Xw ,
tämir+än (M I 8,11, TeilBuch), ärklig+än (TT VI 90 ms. L, beside
three instances of +in in the sentence) and t(ä)v+än (M III nr.4 r11)
with +(X)n, ig+säz (ChristManMsFr ManFr r9) with +sXz, s(ä)v-äg (M
III nr.4 r5)103 with -(X)g, il-än-mägäy (M I 15,5, TeilBuch) with -(X)n-,
är-äw } | (M III nr.4 r7) and ämgät-äw (TT II A 51) with -(X)w , kir-äp
(ChristManMsFr ManFr v6) and tirl-äp (M I 15,9, TeilBuch) with
-(X)p. Interestingly, the lowering of /i/, common in one or two
Manichæan texts but rare otherwise, seems to take place only when the
/i/ is part of the archphoneme /X/. It would appear, then, that at least the
unrounded members of /X/ may, in some archaic variants of Old Turkic
(with a few remnants in texts of the standard stage) not have been
phonetically identical to the members of /I/ and /U/ but lower. The
graphematic hypothesis for the spelling of /ï/ may also be unnecessary.
This by no means signifies, however, that any /X/ vowels were shorter
than vowels of other archphonemes.
The consonant system for early Old Turkic, not including sounds found
only in loan words, is the following:
102 The genitive forms he writes as +ä have not be taken over here as they can, if
written in Uygur script, also be read as +n(i) .
103 What precedes this should have been read as kïz agar ‘precious and honoured’ and
not as read by the editor.
62 CHAPTER TWO
The difference between the first and the second column of consonants
must have been one both of voice and of tension, i.e. strong (more
energetic, fortis) vs. weak (less energetic, lenis) pronunciation; the two
distinctions must have been joined to varying degrees. The term ‘stop’
:8.
00#np>
889a%nn:<#5.0:]p:f?< 0 n(K8m#9aK:8.
>n
the voiced orals, whose main variants are fricative: We could have
5 L0<: nag#5 ¡¢¤£8¥¦g§?¨
¥8©9ª¬«L¦¤]¨
®¯±°¨
©²9¯:©³«¯:©¦¤´.¯:®¯ — following the
practice of most work on Old Turkic — not to use Greek letters either
in transcription or in transliteration. /d/ was realised as a stop [d] only
when it was preceded by one of the voiced continuants /r l n/ or (in
some cases) /z/. There is a [b] at the word onset; within words, [b]
appears only in late texts: Onset [b] could be equally assigned to /v/ as
to /p/. We use the letters b (in onset position) and v (elsewhere), d and g
to transcribe the voiced oral consonants in all positions. Among the
velars, fricativity was not characteristic of the voiced member of the
opposition but rather of the voiced and partly also the unvoiced
allophones obtaining in back-harmonic syllables.
The nasality opposition is fullest for the alveolar domain. It is weakest
among the palatals, since the opposition /y : ñ/ is cancelled for the great
majority of sources not written in runiform script. The opposition
between oral labials and /m/ is cancelled for most of Old Turkic when
an onset [b] is (after a vowel) followed by a nasal, as [b] is then
replaced by /m/. In marginal sources we also sometimes witness a /v ~
m/ alternation between vowels, as in the DLT’s küvürkän / kümürkän
‘wild onion’. A /g ~ µ ¢*¶·L¦n¯k®?©9¶ ¦<«0¨
©±«p¸T§?¨
¥8©9ª¹«2©º²9¯:®»£³¸g¸¥9°:´¼¶#¸ äg- ~ ä½ -
‘to bend’; suffixes containing / µ ¾<¿ÀÁ ³Á¹ÃpÄ9ÀÆÅ nd person possessive
suffixes, are often (especially in inscriptional Turkic) found with /g/
instead of the nasal.
/s/ and /z/, the unvoiced and the voiced alveolar sibilants, are put into
one column for convenience. The placing of /r/ among the velars is
arbitrary; we do not know how this phoneme was pronounced.
blowing sound) or a bilabial flap ([w]). [w] appears not to have been
meant when the Uygurs used the letter beth for writing it both in the
Uygur and in the Manichæan script: 105
õ¤ö8õ is in fact also used as consonant – rarely and only in foreign
words; e.g. waxšig ‘dæmon’ e.g. in ManUigFr r1 (Manichæan) or TT V
104 This might speak for a Semitic origin for the script, as no early Semitic languages
or writing systems possessed a v as distinct from b, though they did possess a w (which
could also serve as mater lectionis for rounded vowels). Semitic scripts in use for
writing
÷ø ù úOû0ünúúðOld
ýkú÷þTurkic
ÿ:do
ú
use
øWúwhen
rendering
! "#$&the
%'(consonant
'*)
% +-,
$&.#/0[w]
'($1)
in23)
borrowings
'4#5#,!676 1,
$and
!$71#8the
6
to represent the labial oral consonants.
105 Gabain used the letter w for [v], following German orthography, and the letter v for
[w] in her publications, including her text editions and grammar (1941, 1974). Hamilton
uses 9 in his transliterations of the oral weak labial.
64 CHAPTER TWO
B 124 (Buddhist), widvag ‘chapter’ (Saddh 30 and two other places 106
mentioned in the note thereto), :<;>=@?5;.A ‘sedan chair’ e.g. in HTs VII
1111, lenxwa ‘lotus’, narwan ‘elm’ (ManUigFr r4) or the divinity name
äzrwa. Such spelling is quite consistent, indicating that words were
probably actually pronounced with a bilabial voiced consonant at least
by some individuals. Runiform O / U is also used in this way: Cf.
kew(a)n ‘Saturn’ in Blatt 10 and cf. the remark on this on p. 298 of the
edition (p.607 of the reedition). Note that this /w/ could appear both at
the onset and coda of syllables. The interjection awu also has the sound
[w], but interjections often contain sounds not otherwise used.
The DLT distinguishes (fol.26) between consonantal =@B>= and thrice-
dotted C B , which is said to have been pronounced “between the points of
articulation” of C B and D B ; the Oguz are said to pronounce =@B>= where
the other Turks have the three-dot C B . Dankoff & Kelly p.55, who
discuss the instances where this is defined and used, take the three-dot
C B to refer to a bilabial which they transcribe as w, while they take the
letter =@B>= to refer to a labiodental voiced consonant, [v]. They base
their argument on the fact that the Oguz and the Persians nowadays
pronounce
EGF5FHJILKGMNPthe
ORQTS sound
U>MV WLXYas
F5MH>[v];
NZI\[]therefore,
N!K they think, this must also have
=@B>= . Borovkova 1966 (supported by
Doerfer 1993: 52) had held the opposite opinion, taking =@B>= to have
have been used with the sound value which it has in normal Arabic. My
use of the letter v to refer to this phoneme also when quoting the DLT
should not be understood as implying a choice for one of the three
possible pronunciations mentioned above. ^ ‘sleep’ is spelled as uv
once in U III; uvšat-, uvšan- and uvšal- ‘to crumble (tr. and intr.)’ and
uvšak ‘petty’ are, on the other hand, often spelled without v (with ugak
‘mortar’ from the same root), and kuvrat- ‘to assemble (tr.)’ is
sometimes spelled as kurat-. Cf. su < suv _8`bacd
efhg8ikjZlGmn.oqpsrutv0lwg!x
would speak for a bilabial pronunciation of /v/ at least after /u/. The
Manichæan and Uygur script use of y@z>y exclusively for transcribing
[w] in foreign words clearly speaks for a labiodental pronunciation of
normal Old Turkic /v/.
In the word onset [b] could, as an alternative to being an allophone of
/v/, be assigned to the phoneme /p/; this would correct the system
asymmetry following from the absence of [p] in this position in original
106 {}|~w
~&~-
}|
4
~7~|P
*}|hG~(~8h
~
(
&
1*8 |
!~ (8!*( *¡
and not Manichæan, as Maue & Röhrborn thought. Zieme proposes ( SIAL 18 (2003):
147) yör]üg widvag but böl]ök widvag would be better: widvag here (as elsewhere in
Uygur) does not signify ‘interpretation, explanation’, the primary meaning in the source
language Sogdian, but ‘chapter’, the second meaning it has in Sogdian.
PHONOLOGY 65
Turkic words107 though all the other unvoiced phonemes except /š/ do
appear in onset position. Several modern (e.g. Siberian) Turkic
languages have just this postulated /p/ in onset position (with sporadic
appearance
¢@£7¤¥.¦R§¨¦ª©4©«}of¬®!©#p- in³!¥wsome
¯±°u©²Y ²´²³³²other
£ Turkic languages, e.g. Turkish).
p more often than b and bh for [b],108
proving at least that the phonemic load on the distinction between these
was not very important to the scribes. The fact that the Uygur script has
Semitic and Sogdian pe for [b] supports this idea but is no automatic
proof for it: Sogdian used Semitic beth (as well as gimel) to represent
fricatives and not stops, and [b] is no fricative. The Manichæan writing
system does use Semitic beth to render [b], using beth with two super-
scribed dots to write [v].109 The [v : b] opposition seemed more worthy
of explicit representation than the [p : b] opposition to those adapting
the Sogdian alphabet to Old Turkic, but the [p : b] opposition was trea-
ted as the more essential one by the adapters of the Manichæan script to
this language. The fact that the runiform script, which was in use both
in Mongolia and in East Turkestan, used the two b runes after vowels
for what appears as [v] in all Turkic languages and also for representing
the labial stop in the onset of words strongly speaks against the
possibility that the Old Turkic labial in this position was a [p].
Uygur /v/ appears to remain a fricative even after /r l/, as shown by
instances of the suffix -vI (q.v. in OTWF section 3.115) and by such
stems as alvïr- ‚to rave‘ (near-minimal pair with alpïrka- ‚to find
something difficult‘), arvï ‚doubt‘, yelvi ‚magic‘, etc. Instances of the
realisation of /v/ as [b] beside /l/ are discussed in section 2.409.
The realisation of /p/ between vowels is not very clear. On the one
hand we have two words in Indic scripts which show b between vowels:
koburga ‘owl’ in TT VIII O4 and abag ‘sheltered’ from the stem apï-,
in TT VIII I 4 and BuddhKat 20 (in both cases with lowering of the /ï/
due to the adjacent /g/). This labial must be an allophone of /p/, as the
107 Uygur texts do have it there in numerous borrowings from Sanskrit, Chinese etc.;
see section 2.404 for what cannot appear in the onset and for possible reasons.
108 Cf. Róna-Tas 1991: 83: “Onset b is as a rule transcribed with p-. In the manuscripts
F, H and I we find as a rule bh-. The manuscript K has in most cases ph-. The writing
with b- is relatively rare, but occurs in the most frequent words such as bilig, bilge, baš,
beš. The word burxan is always written with b-, and in the two manuscripts where we
find also p- (A, E) it occurs together with forms written with b-.”
109 These two dots are occasionally dropped, making [v] appear as b, e.g. in suv
‘water’ spelled as sub, or in the noun kïv in BT V 134. Three lines further, in BT V 137,
the dots are there, however, making it likely that in this passage, as in texts in
Manichæan script in general, the omission is merely graphic and is not to be understood
as reflecting pronunciation.
66 CHAPTER TWO
- but that there is a variant which he spells with WJ instead of BJ
adding that this is pronounced with . Dankoff & Kelly think that
!"$#%&(')&*" +%,-
,(./1032&*4*" 5,&6#&8792:&;<-=&$>&(?1@BA C" D E%FGDHI+:HI5G+4*&J K K
the
Persian way, as [v]. They may be wrong, as [f] and [v] share the feature
of labiodental articulation as against kapšur- (not ‘kabšur-’, as
transcribed), appearing in BT III 935 beside kavšur- elsewhere in that
text. tapšur- ‘to hand over’ is also likely to have been pronounced as
tafšur-, but L MI - in DLT fol. 354 shows that the Qarakhanid dialect
did not participate in such a development; in that source we also find
the variant k NPO QI - < kikšür-. p > f and k > x, which both take place
before
R
/š/, are attested only in back-harmony syllables. The runiform,
7%SB5GDUTBV(D@ G'9E3" +J9WX-/2&$#"Y+),Z4 DU-/F#[,\:"$>&+H94 " D"4$#& D^][HID_.<]0Z`
110 koburga could be read with p in DLT fol. 245, where Dankoff & Kelly write b;
a\b c dfeg hBi*jkUj
bl also to represent the sound [p]. See OTWF for Uygur instances of apï-
and apït- not mentioned in the EDPT or the UW. The latter writes m n o p and q$r sutvsxwuyzqf{|s }
with b ~ v[
vfY</u=xU\f\vY f
Uxx f8 xv apï- etc. is phonemic.
111 If Turkish has kabar-, saban and çubuk this is because these words had long
vowels in their first syllables in Proto-Turkic and Proto-Oguz.
112 Note, though, that the verb ävir- is also spelled with F in TT IX 117, also in
Manichæan writing.
PHONOLOGY 67
example beside the one just mentioned) or with P with a pair of dots
over or under the letter or (most commonly) with a line under the letter
P. The word spelled as Porom in KT E 4 and BQ E 5 in fact represents
Forom, coming from From, the Parthian form of the name of (East)
Rome or Byzantium. In runiform mss. it is the characters b1 and b2 (also
used for writing /v/) rather than p (as in the inscriptions) that are used
for rendering [f].
We had, in the table, given /p/ and /v/ as unvoiced and voiced oral
labial consonants respectively. With the addition of foreign words we
get /p/ and /w/ as unvoiced and voiced oral bilabial consonants (/m/
presumably also being bilabial and voiced) and /f/ and /v/ as unvoiced
and voiced oral labiodentals respectively.
It is clear that Old Turkic had a /t/; the question is whether the voiced
¡I¢G£¤¥Y¦[§¨ ¦©¤¡«ª^¤¬:
®6¯1¨M®6° ± ²´³ µ¶·µ¸B¹z²¶B²º/µ»¹
¼:½¿¾À¼¸«Á=½9¸GÂ
Ã!Á=¶ÅÄ^ÆGÇ[Ⱥ=ÉÊÄ\¼½
Proto-Turkic voiced alveolar might have been /d/, seeing that this is
what appears in Sayan Turkic, and that the Proto-Turkic phoneme fused
with /t/ in Yakut. A change Ë Ì > d is, however, possible even between
vowels under substrate or adstrate influence, and the Yakut
development is secondary in any case. Evidence will be presented
below for the thesis that the main allophone of the voiced alveolar
ÍÎIÏ%ÐÎIÏ:Ñ ÏÒÔÓ1ÑBÐÖÕ<× ØÚÙ ÛÜÝÛ:ÞBßáà<ÜGØãâ/ÛäÙå<åÔæ!å=Üèç\é«ê[ëâ=ìíâ/ÛìMå/éÜ«â/Û:îïæðê[ëñÞIÛ
Turkic (against the view of T. Tekin and some others). The runiform
and the Uygur and Sogdian scripts have two characters to represent the
non-nasal alveolars, the phonemes referred to above as /t/ and / ò /; the
Semitic scripts use the Semitic tau or teth character for the former and
lamed for the latter. Semitic daleth is not used at all in Sogdian and
Uygur writing and is in Manichæan script used only after n. The
runiform script has, in addition, two ligatures, one to express an /l/
followed by an alveolar, the other an /n/ followed by an alveolar. The
Qarakhanid authors writing in Arabic script had at their disposal three
letters (here disregarding the glottalised consonant characters) to repre-
sent non-nasal alveolars, ó ô , õö ÷ and øùGú«û . These three letters can be said
to reflect a differentiation along two trait distinctions: ü=ú is voiceless or
fortis while øú«û and øùGú«û are voiced or lenis; alternately, ü<ú and ø«ú«û are
stops while ø«ùGú«û is a continuant. Dealing with the distinction which the
DLT makes between ø«ú«û and ý ú«û , Dankoff & Kelly 1982: 55-56 find
that there is a lot of fluctuation between the two; cf. examples such as
10 times þGÿ vs. 17 times bodun in their footn. 80. The reason for
68 CHAPTER TWO
113 The authors consider two other possibilities: “2) the phoneme was between [d] and
[d°i±m²_³m´µ·¶ ¸ ¹)º» ¼ ½e¾3¿¾5ÀUÁÂà D interchangeably to indicate it ...; 3) the wavering reflects
dialect mixture.”
114 Sims-Williams (1981: 354), unaware of Johanson 1979, writes: „Further arguments
could be adduced, but I hope that those already mentioned will be sufficient to indicate
the desirability of a reconsideration of the whole question by a competent Turcologist.“
PHONOLOGY 69
Ä'ÅÆ5Ç'È>ÉAÊoË+ÌÎÍÏjÐÑÒ0ÓlÔ{ÕÆ
rces also appear to distinguish between these
three alveolar sounds, using the letters or letter sequences tt or td, t, dh,
d and a special additional character serving in some manuscripts in the
same way as dh serves in the others. tt and td clearly represent [t], t is
[t] or [d], and dh or the special character represent [d] or [ Ö ]. The letter
d, which is only used in the ligature nd, is not relevant if, as Maue
1983: 55 n.11 thinks, it was preferred over nt because nt looked so
similar to tt. Relevance does become evident, however, if one
remembers that the Manichæan script uses daleth only after nun, and
that one of the three sonant + consonant characters of the runiform
script links the alveolar with /n/. The alternative view (which we find
e.g. in Tekin 1968) takes runiform writing at face value, stating that the
opposition between /d/ in /t/ is neutralised after /r l n/ in favor of /t/:
This is, it is there said, what happens in Chuvash, where Proto-Turkic
/d/ coalesced with /r/ everywhere except after /r l n/, in which position it
becomes /t/. The fact is, however, that Chuvash /t/ is, in this position as
between vowels, pronounced as a weak stop. This is also what might
have happened at some stage in Old Uygur: If /t/ acquired a voiced
allophone in certain positions, the [d] allophone of / Ö / might, e.g. at the
stage when the mss. begin to use the t and d characters interchangably,
have joined the phoneme /t/. T.Tekin 1968: 7 takes the stop
pronunciation of adak ‘foot’ or tod- ‘to be satiated’ to be characteristic
of Orkhon Turkic, assuming these to have become a× ak and to× -
respectively in subsequent stages of the language. This assumption need
not be made for Orkhon Turkic, as the script did not have the possibility
of distinguishing between the two alveolars (as it was also unable to
distinguish between [b] and [v] and between [g] and [Ø Ù_Ú¡ÛÜÞÝ5ßáàjâ5ã_ãjäGå1ßoà
+dA, -dOk etc. have to be distinguished from suffixes like -tUr-, which
originally started with /t/ and show T in all positions in Orkhon Turkic;
when they appear with D in late Uygur, this is the result of voicing
assimilation coming up at that stage.115
2.33. The palatals
115 The remaining problem is why +dA, +dAn, - æç.èNéiê -dOk, -dI etc. surface with /d/
and not /y/ in all those Middle and Modern Turkic languages ëìmí%î_ìðïòñ>óEômõjöp÷ø%øù ú ûü[ýÿþ þ
ü
ü
ü
ýCü
ümý !"#"%$'&(&)("+*,.-/)10*2-3*4 5687 9 74::)&(3)9*<;'=>3*
answer given by Johanson 1979: 52, that a locative suffix ‘+yA’ would get confused
with the dative is not convincing because 1) the dative has this shape in quite a small
part of the Turkic world, 2) no similar explanation holds for any of the other suffixes
mentioned, and 3) case suffixes have been known to disappear because of diachronic
sound laws. Rather, at some stage, presumably already in varieties of Old Turkic, [d]
was generalised at the onset of syllables or at least suffixes.
70 CHAPTER TWO
starting with [t] whereas the former is a fricative. Proto-Turkic onset /y/
does, however, appear as the voiced affricate [ e j] in a number of Turkic
languages including Volga Bolgarian, and also in cognates in Mongolic
(which itself does have onset /y/ beside onset / e j/ in original Mongolic
words with no Turkic counterparts). 117 Whether Old Turkic speakers
f'gih+j%kFlnmFoFpRqPlPrsqSo>tvuVj+lwXxFywZj
ovz8{+|({d}ipu~yu>
also pronounced the affricate [ e
context is unknown; this may have been the case e.g. with PS ïr ‘vajra’,
which is often also spelled with C: [ j] may for some have been less
v
vv4V
F>v
FSP!R%!
RP
!HV
FH (¡!Pd¢£FH¥¤+¦(¤§n©¨
ªv«4¬>F¬V®vF¯P°P±³²µ´.¶F°¸·°P¹>®F°!¯P°Dº¼»X·
º
½ªªF°P½«<·¾»+¬¿¶!½(ÀF°DÁF°P¯S¬>Âðnº+Ä(ºÆÅ
i- ‘to
Ç(ÈVÉ
116 Editors nowadays adapt the spelling of borrowed words to what is known about
Old Turkic phonotactics. Only maytri, the Uygur name of the future Buddha Maitreya,
is still transcribed ‘traditionally’, as “maitri”.
117 It is not clear on what base Johanson 2001: 1723b assumes the existence of /j / in
“Ost -Alttürkisch” (as he calls the language).
118 This is made likely in OTWF 204 and 534; cf. Persian š ‚sweet’ < š ‚milk’
and the fact that Turkmen süyt and süyji both have long vowels.
PHONOLOGY 71
and the ethnic name Kïtañ. A character for this sound exists only in the
runiform script; the palatal nasal of the Indic writing systems is not
used for representing it. Runiform sources (listed in Clauson 1962: 91)
have /ñ/ (beside proper names) in the diminutive suffix +kIñA and in the
stems añïg ‘bad’, ïgañ ‘destitute’, turña ‘crane’, 119 kañu ‘which’, koñ
‘sheep’ (also in koñ ï) and yañ- ‘to disperse’. However, a Turfan
fragment (MIK III 34b = T II T 20 in KöktüTurf, p. 535 in SEddTF)
listing runiform characters together with their pronunciation in
Manichæan script in fact gives ’YY (to be read iy or ïy) for the runiform
character ñ. This could mean that there was a transitional stage, in
which this character was still known and could still be used when
writing in runiform script, but its pronunciation had changed.
Therefore, if we find a word spelled with runiform ñ, this in itself does
not guarantee nasal pronunciation, and the convergence of /ñ/ with /y/
may partly have taken place earlier than assumed hitherto. Alternative-
ly, the author of this fragment may have felt y to be the representation
closest to the nasalised voiced palatal consonant he knew.
In Old Turkic written with other alphabets, */ñ/ in most texts becomes
y. turña ‘crane’, e.g., appears as turya in TT VIII P 29; Zieme’s correct
interpretation of this is quoted in SIAL 17 (2002): 83 (footn. 43). There
are, however, conspicuous exceptions: A few Manichæan mss. have the
digraph NY also in Semitic writing systems. We find it in bir+kinyä
‘single’ (M I 23,32) and in kanyu in Wettkampf 43, six times in the
London scroll of TT VI (according to Laut 1986: 81), Pañc 192 and
ManTüFr 7, with an additional 10 examples for kanyu mentioned in the
note to this latter instance. Two of these examples appear in a Buddhist
fragment quoted in the n. to TT V A 23, showing that the retention of
/ñ/ was not limited to Manichæan sources (as generally thought). 120 The
w
spelling !#" $ for ‘evil’ in Manichæan script in the X %'&)(*+-,/.101(32#465
times in Uygur script in the TT VI London scroll (again according to
Laut) and no doubt elsewhere as well can be read either as anïg or as
añ(ï)g, depending on whether one believes that /ñ/ lived on unchanged
in this text or that it became /n/. In mss. in Uygur writing, this may also
be a misreading of a(y)ïg, when the editor assumes defective spelling of
a with a single alef, since N and alef mostly look the same in that script
119 I do not think the spelling with ÑY in the IrkB indicates a pronunciation placing Ñ
and Y into separate syllables: There are in that text many instances of a double sign
being redundantly accompanied by a simple one, e.g. Türk getting spelled with the
character for rounded front vowels followed by wk. turñya is probably just to be read as
turña (or possibly as turuña in view of some modern forms).
120 kanyuda has also been read in U II 6,13, also Buddhist, but the ms. is now lost.
72 CHAPTER TWO
to have changed /*ñ/ to /n/. This is also what happened among the
121 Uygur otherwise has kuyaš < *kuñaš, which lives on as kuñ ~ ‘warm weather’ in
Yakut and Dolgan. The IrqB form conforms with Xaladj künäš / kinäš ‘sunny’ and
Oguz günäš (Turkmen ‘sunny, sunlight, sunny place’).
122 koyïn in BuddhKat 20 is not the nominative, as he thinks, but the accusative form
of stem + possessive suffix; the passage reads atïn, adgïrïn, koyïn yïkïsïn ... ïdalayur.
This rather early source has progressive -sA instead of the conditional suffix -sAr, and
koy ‘sheep’ could be another progressive feature; but then, [ñ] could also have been a
too sJJ
]CJ]-:
M/ a
C)1)C J/Ja ¡ ¢ £¤ ¥ ¦
§-¨)©C¨ª)©C¨#«1¨)¬s¨)©Cª@
instances of the word, all spelled koyn.
123 In TT VIII P, reedited together with an additional fragment in Maue 2002. The 1st
person singular modal suffix is also practically always spelled with final YN.
124 ®¯p°J±s²²±³j´}°µC±¶L¯
·¸6¹¡µCº)·¶¼» ½¾¿]ÀÀÁ Â-ÃÁ Â#ÄÅ)Æ-¿lÇ)ÈsÈÉËʼÌ1Í ÎsÎMÏ#ÐÒÑËÓ
ÔÅÕÓ/Ö×ÃÆÌ muyuz
had back vowels (and not front ones as written in the EDPT); spellings in Uygur writing
are ambiguous.
PHONOLOGY 73
125 Doerfer considers this language to be new Argu, as it were, but material in Sims
Williams 2000 shows that Turkic Khaladj lived as a nation in Northern Afghanistan
already before the appearance of the Argu in the sources.
126 Cf. Zieme 1969: 226 for a probable Mongolian cognate. Dankoff & Kelly read the
DLT word as yün and are followed by Hauenschild 2003: 249-250. The EDPT (entry
yo:n) is wrong in stating that “there is no native Turkish word for ‘peacock’”.
127 Another exception is tur(u)ña ‘crane’, mentioned above; contiguity with /r/ may
there be the reason.
74 CHAPTER TWO
calised already in Uygur. If the DLT’s kayak and Argu kanak (Middle
and Modern Turkic kaymak except kanak in Khaladj) go back to kayna-
‘to boil’ and the base of kayïntur- as suggested in Doerfer 1993: 130,
then the source of the n ~ y alternation should, in this word, also not
come from /ñ/ but from the phoneme sequence /yn/ or even /ym/.
One piece of evidence for original *ñ as second consonant are those
cases where there is, in an originally Turkic word, /m/ at the beginning
of a word without there being a nasal following it. Such cases are
Uygur moyum ‘confused’, muyuz ‘horn’, mayak ‘dung’, the DLT’s
mayïl ‘overripe’ and its cognates , muyga ‘headstrong’ and muygak
‘female maral deer’. Uygur meji ‘brain’ corresponds to meõ ö in the
DLT, mä÷ ø in the QB, both attested solidly; I do not think that this
should make us posit ‘*ù ´ ’ as an additional phoneme for Proto -Turkic,
as is believed by some: Note that *buñuz also became müú ûü or
muý þÿ
in the latest Uygur and in the DLT, but cf. Chuvash (with
diminutive suffix). The b > m change thus gives us an indication for the
original state of affairs in stems starting with labials. The number of
*/ñ/s which we do not know about because the stem started with /t/, /
/k/ or vowel, not being attested in the earliest texts or in Khaladj must,
taken together, have been much greater. In a Yenisey inscription we
find tañ+larïm ‘my colts’. This noun is otherwise attested in the DLT
and the QB, in Middle and Modern Turkic but not in Uygur; generally
it has the shape tay and Yakut has tïy. Had it not been for this one
inscription, we would not have known of the possibility that the word
may have had a palatal nasal; this is a matter of coincidence. In view of
the state the Yenisey inscriptions are in, the Ñ may also be error.
To sum all this up from the dialectological point of view, post-
inscriptional Turkic had varieties in which /ñ/ was in some form or
other retained as an independent phoneme; elsewhere it became /yn/ or
fused with the phonemes /n/ or /y/. ñ > n is attested in Argu and
Khaladj, for two nouns in Qarakhanid; +kIñA had a special develop-
ment. In Uygur /ñ/ was gradually reduced to /y/ with fluctuations, but
there was no n dialect within Uygur. Wherever scholars have found an
N for *ñ in Uygur, there practically always is a Y beside it, again giving
/ñ/; assuming defective spelling (which is common in all texts and
especially in the ones in question) the (in any case rather rare) instances
for N can all, with one exception in Sogdian writing, be read as NY or
YN. Clauson 1962: 118 had proposed that these NY, YN and N are all
spellings for ñ. Röhrborn 1981-82 accepted this view and further
proposed that the Y < ñ appearing in these texts should be read as [ñ] as
well: I think the opposite is true: NY was, at any rate in mss. in
PHONOLOGY 75
Manichæan and Uygur script, an archaic and obsolete spelling for what
was presumably already being pronounced as [y] by most of the
population. This could partly have been true even for the runiform mss.,
even if they consistently wrote Ñ.
128 I know of only one text in Uygur writing which uses K and X indiscriminately:
HamTouHou 16, a letter written by an ambassador from Khotan to China, who appears
not to have been all too familiar with Uygur spelling; it shows other irregularities as
well, e.g. beš z {| ‘fifth’ written as PYŠYC.
129 The word for ‘blood’ had a long vowel in Proto -Turkic.
76 CHAPTER TWO
syllable of burxan ‘Buddha’. 130 Since xan must have been within the
Old Turkic lexicon for centuries, we are entitled to consider it to be part
of the legitimate base for determining the phoneme inventory. [x]
would have been considered a phoneme if there had been more
distinctive load on the opposition, if it had not been an allophone of /k/
and perhaps a free alternant as well. The voiceless velar may sometimes
have been pronounced as a fricative also in front harmony words: We
find
}:~.66aword
~'for
;m‘breast-strap’
~.B}6%
P;6Ospelled
oo#;}Bas kömüldrüx
I68axO with H in a list of
The realization of Sanskrit h in loans in Uygur texts in Uygur script is
explored by Röhrborn 1988. As he shows, it was spelled as X before the
vowels /a u o/; before the vowels /i e/, however, K was used to represent
what had been Sanskrit h. The reason, probably, is that the sources of
the Uygur q character are in fact the Semitic letters gimel and h eth,
which were in Sogdian used to express the voiced and the unvoiced
velar fricatives respectively.131
When originally Sanskrit words containing the consonants k, g, kh or
gh appear in Uygur, they are spelled as K even when they share
syllables with back vowels. Borrowed terms appear often to have been
taken over through Sogdian, the script is in any case adapted from
Sogdian and this is Sogdian spelling practice. The explanation proposed
by Johanson 1993a: 96 that the Uygurs had used K and not X to
represent the foreign unvoiced gutturals because they had felt them to
be less velar than the back-vowel dorsal of their language (represented
by X) may be just as valid. Röhrborn 1996 has a third explanation, that
they were chosen because caph was unequivocally plosive while
gimel/hx had primarily been fricative in Sogdian, was still so in
Uygur in the voiced domain and partly also in its unvoiced counterpart
([q ~ x]). The Sogdians could in any case not have used gimel or hx
for expressing stops as these letters exclusively represented fricatives in
their language.132 Röhrborn states that the spelling rules of Old Turkic
130 The first syllable is said to come from an early Chinese pronunciation of this name
(the modern Mandarin pronunciation being fo).
131 See Röhrborn 1996: 179-180 on this question. Röhrborn approvingly quotes
Clauson 1962: 103 and 105, taking his side against Sims-Williams 1981: 355, n.26 on
the matter of Clauson’s consistent reference to gimel-h ¡£¢¥¤ where Sims-Williams
distinguishes between the instances of gimel and of h¦ eth, but Clauson was referring to
Sogdian (and was wrong about that) whereas Röhrborn refers to the Uygur letter.
132 Such a situation has actually developed spontaneously in Modern Hebrew, where
qoph is the only letter used for rendering foreign [k] although caph also most often is
pronounced as [k], because caph can also render the sound [x]; when quoting foreign
PHONOLOGY 77
need not be expected to hold also for borrowings, since the coexistence
in one word of velar characters respectively serving front and back
harmony is possible only in them. While this is correct, I still see a
problem with Röhrborn’s argument in the fact that the phenomenon is
not limited to the Sogdian-Uygur alphabet but also appears in the
Manichæan one, where both caph and qoph are used for both the front
and the back velar (the latter dotted); but we find, in Manichæan
writing, in M II 12,8, trazuk ‘scales for weighing’ with front K. Suffixes
added to borrowings were spelled the Turkish way, which lead to words
like š(u)lok+ka ‘to the poem’ (< Skt. § ¨g©%ª « ) being spelled with K in the
stem but X in the suffix. Cf. also Erdal 2002: 5-7.
In Turkic words [x] is, among other things, the allophone of /k/ in
contiguity with /š/ in back-vowel words, e.g. in oxša- ‘to caress’. The
DLT fol.144 also spells ogša- ‘to resemble’ (as well as a number of
derivates from this verb) with ¬ , but that is the result of assimilatory
devoicing which appears to have been rare in Uygur.133 There, this verb
had a voiced velar fricative, [ © ® ša-] presumably still differing in
pronunciation from oxša-. ogša- ‘to resemble’ is also spelled with h in
at least six Br ¯;°±B² ³.´µ#¶P·;´6¸¹8µ»º,¹;´¶³¼%´6¹ ½³.´¿¾ÁÀÃÂCÄ_Å:Æ8ÇÈÉÊ:³9˹ÌÉ͹ÁÎ'´6¼8É
from Windg 50 (Manichæan writing) that it there (still) was a voiced
Ï@Ð6ÑBÐ6Ò8ÓÔÏ;ÐÖÕÐ'×6Ò6ØÙÚÑÍ×6ÚÛÏ;ÜÞÝßoÜ#à;áâBã h äÍå8æå ç9æéèÍêæOëìîímè%ïaï#ë@ðï#ëæéë@ñ'òó.ñ6ôöõ ÷ øOù
takšur- ‘to compose verses’ was probably also pronounced as taxšur-;
the velar hardly ever seems to be spelled with the q dots in Uygur
writing. The same applies to the onomatopoetic verbs ú ûü'ýxû%ýþÿûü'ýxû%ýþ
yorï- in Ht IV 1541, the base of the latter appearing as ÿ ûü%ýxû - in DLT
fol.569, and sïxšal- ‘to get dense’ in Ht V III 1838. Finally yaxšï ‘fine,
appropriate’, not attested before DLT and QB, clearly comes from yak-
ïš- ‘to be suitable’. Sogdian ÿ š’p , perhaps pronounced as
,
comes from Sanskrit
; this may mean that the spirantisation of
velars before /š/ may have been an areal phenomenon.
Zieme 1969: 36 gives a list of instances where x is written instead of q
between vowels; these may either reflect a free alternation between stop
and fricative, or they may be simple errors: Both in the Uygur and the
Manichæan scripts, x differs from q only in that the former has one dot
above the letter, the latter two.
! "$#&%'")(+*# (,(+*.-0/214350# 6798:<;= *# >?;A@CBD6.BD3A6=-0BD6E"$- (,F#=G>
-
harmony k as [x] in such words as xayu ‘which’, xanda ‘where’ and
xïzïm ‘my daughter’. Ottoman hangi and hani, Azeri hara ‘where’ and
haysï ‘which’ show that there was such a process in the inter rogatives;
the velar of kïz is a fricative in Volga Bolgarian (late 13th century).
The realisation as stop (i.e. as [g] or even perhaps as [k]) after sonants
is partly observable also for /g/ (and not only for / H /), as indicated by
the word spelled ärkli in the Orkhon inscriptions: Phonologically or at
least morphophonologically speaking this is är-gli with the participle
suffix -(X)glI. What may have led to the pronunciation [ärkli] with [k]
is the syllabification ärk|li, Old Turkic having no coda cluster [rg]. If
the first velar character in yapïrgak ‘leaf’ is double -dotted in HTs VIII
15, this can, however, very well mean that it was pronounced as a stop
and not as a fricative, rather than pointing towards a pronunciation
‘yapïrkak’ . Further instances to be considered in this connection are
burkï IKJMLCN4OQP.RSPT.UDOVL$RSPAWXZY[]\^J`_aYb&cd_feKegYhCegY[iRSPjlkET4mnLpoDqrLps tAuvw_ P[QxQLC_ y.RZa
script and formed with the formative -gI described in OTWF § 3.110,
the particle ärki which has been proposed to come from är- ‘to be’ by
different suffixes starting with /g/, or the rather opaque kulkak <
*kulgak ‘ear’. In other positions, the pronunciation of the soft velar
appears to have been fricative. The /g/ of the words arït-galï ‘for
cleaning’ and yumurtga ‘egg’ is spelled with h in BuddhKat: This can
just mean that /g/ was here pronounced as a fricative [z ], but it could
also have been pronounced as [x]: To judge by the diacritics of the
verbs agtur- ‘to raise’, agtïn- ‘to rise, climb, get to’ and agtar- ‘to
throw, turn or roll something over, to translate’ in Uygur script and the
{}| ~.K r| ~9|G~
rC nC
ling of agtïn-, their velar had already
gotten devoiced in Uygur; evidence is discussed in the UW entries and
in OTWF 586, 734. The DLT a number of times spells agtar- as axtar-.
The Turkic-Khotanese hippological glossary also often spells /g/ as h
after back vowels, e.g. in agz+ï “mouth”, kïrïg ‘selvage of the saddle’,
azïg ‘elephant tusk’ or kasïg ‘inside of the cheeks’ and even after front
vowels, in yig ‘bridle bit’, ilig ‘attachment’, bügsäk ‘upper chest’ and
bögür ‘kidney’. Editors often transcribe / g/ as g in words with front
harmony but as in words with back harmony, implying that the back-
harmonic variant of this phoneme was a spirant whereas the front
variant was a stop. This practice reflects the spelling on the Semitic
scripts adopted for Old Turkic: Semitic gimel was a velar spirant in
Sogdian, the language from which the Uygurs took the script they used
most often, whereas caph, which served for both front /k/ and /g/,
represented a stop in Sogdian. Taking to symbolise a voiced velar
fricative and an accent sign to symbolize palatal pronunciation,
Doerfer’s and (as e.g. in Shor, or in Anatolian dialects retaining the
PHONOLOGY 79
velar pronunciation of /g/ after vowels) are in fact probably more exact
renderings of /g/ when not preceded by /r l n/.
As already noticed in OTWF 747, a number of verbs formed with the
suffix +gAr- (with G documented as such in sources in runiform,
) .ZGr .AC A ¢¡D¤£Vp .Z¦¥$ $S§¨g© Cª«G¬E¥$f¨MSª®¡¬A¨gª ^§ ¯¨¯¥°¡A±
+(X)k- verbs: äd+ik- > äd+gär- as dealt with in OTWF 743 and in the
UW, ²<³ +ik- ‘to submit, enter, capitulate’ > ²S³ +gär- ‘to introduce,
subdue, conquer’ and taš+ïk- ‘to go or step out’ > taš+gar- ‘to bring,
give or get out’ are formed with the addition of the causative suffix
-Ar-. In and+gar- ‘to make somebody swear an oath’ < ant+ïk- ‘to
swear an oath’ and ³ ïn+gar- ‘to investigate something’ < ³ ïn+ïk- ‘to be
confirmed, found genuine’ the /g/ is solidly documented only by the
DLT and further research is needed to determine whether especially
³ ïngar- and the petrified converb ³ ïngaru were pronounced as here
spelled in Uygur as well. The alternation between the two velars is not
necessarily one of voice; it may also be that G was chosen for the
causative because the velar was, in this position, pronounced as a
fricative and not as a stop. This, however, is only a hypothesis. The
alternation is no doubt related to a distributional difference which we
find in Orkhon Turkic134 concerning the appearance of the letters k and
g after consonants within stems: /k/ is found practically exclusively
after /r l/, in alkïn-, ilki, kulkak, yïlkï, arka, arkïš, tarkan, tarkïn³ ,
tokurkak, irkin, ärkli, ärklig. The only exception is yuyka, attested twice
in Tuñ 13.135 No such limitations exist, on the other hand, for /g/:
Beside lexemes with /lg/ such as bilgä, bulga- or tolgat- and /rg/ such
as kärgäk or tirgür- we also find ones such as ï´&µ ïn-, adgïr, ädgü,
¶K·A¸ ·
µ ´ ï, amga, ämgäk, ingäk, kïsga, bašgu, tavïšgan, bošgur- or
kazgan-. There thus appears to have been a complementary distribution
within stems, which does not hold before inflectional suffixes, but
+gAr- clearly did not count as inflectional: The dative suffix is always
spelled with K, e.g., while the directive suffix always has G.136
The phonemic opposition /k/ : /g/ is solid after vowels, e.g. in akï
‘generous, virtuous’ vs. agï ‘treasure’, äk- ‘to sow’ vs. äg- ‘to bend’
134 This is based on the documentation of Tekin 1968: 88-91; proper names and what I
consider to be errors have been excluded.
135 This shape of the word is isolated, as Old Uygur has yuka and Qarakhanid yuvka or
yupka. The word is well attested in Middle and Modern Turkic languages but none
show a y or any reflex of one. I don’t think one can take it to be a mason’s error if a
word occurs twice, as assumed by EDPT 874a; it might be a dialect peculiarity,
however, and is in any case likely to be secondary.
136 See section 3.124 for a discussion of the nature of the velar of the dative suffix.
80 CHAPTER TWO
and oxša- ‘to carress’ vs. ogša- ‘to resemble’. However, it seems
difficult to find such minimal pairs for other positions.
The alternation /¹ º¼»)ºg½º¼¾^¿MÀ ÁÀÃÂ+ÄÁÆÅ.Á ÇÂ+ÈCÉÊK¿+Ë$Éf¯¿ZÌDÅÍÌAÎlÂ+ÄÁÏÌDÐnÐÌËѿ¯¿ZÌDÅÍÌAÎ
nasality in the velar domain) occurring in Orkhon Turkic is not a purely
phonic matter, as it there takes place only with the 2nd person possessive
suffix (used also in the preterit suffix); it is documented in section
3.122. This is a dialect characteristic which, according to DLT fol.350,
also occurs in some Argu dialects. It does not happen in the 2nd person
plural imperative suffix (where /Ò ºÓ¿ÔËr¿SÅÕÂ+ÄÁ2ÖÌn×AÉ2ÉËÙØ]¿Â+Ä]Â+Ä.ÁlÐÌËËÑÁËËÑ¿ÚÁ
singular), nor with the genitive (whose Orkhon Turkic variant after
consonants is +XÛ ) nor, in Orkhon Turkic or in Uygur, in stems. As a
quite different phenomenon, the Mait (as listed in Laut 1986: 71-74),
the HamTouen text 18, a few Manichæan texts and the DLT
sporadically spell /Ò ºÉË K in Uygur and Arabic script (where this letter
is used also for /g/). This is a purely graphic matter, as (front) K appears
in back-vowel words as well. A few Uygur mss. (dealt with by P.
Zieme in a lecture with the title ‘Gab es Entnasalisierung im
Altuigurischen?’ held at the VATEC symposium in Frankfurt,
September 2002) spell [ÒÜ ÉË K with a superposed dot. Rarely, /Ò ºÝÉ Å×
/g/ do alternate in the DLT: ‘elephant’ there is yaÛDÞAß (not among the
Oguz) or yaà Þß (cf. Uygur yaÛÞ ); áãâ ‚to you’ < saÛÞ in DLT fol.536
and the address tärim < täÛDä å<æ in DLT fol.199 presumably passed
through a stage with /g/.
/Ò çéèAêAë4ìíê4îéïêDíEìÑð+ìCîéêAñéî+ò.ëQì$ëóDô.ë íïë¼çÔíõçMö÷øî+òêôõ4ò]î+òëúù.ë ûüðîMðZïþýQÿpðîMðSí.õ
systems spell it that way under front synharmonism. /n/ + /g/ gives /ç
neither in stems like ingäk ‘cow’, nor when a stem ending in /n/ is
followed by suffix (e.g. the directive) starting with /g/. This may have
been different prehistorically in view of the fusion of +gArU with the
2nd and 3rd person possessive suffixes to give +(X) and +(s)I
and taking är
‘finger’ and ya
‘cheek-bone’ to come from är+än
‘men’ and yan ‘side’ respectively. 137 Cf. also käli ‘my daughters-
in-law’ in Orkhon Turkic KT N9, assuming kälin ‘daughter-in-law’ +
collective suffix +(A)gU + pronominal /n/ + 1st person possessive suffix
(which is not completely regular, as the collective suffix otherwise loses
its first vowel only after vowels). The 2nd or 3rd person possessive
suffixes in the dative case, +(X) and +(s)I , show an otherwise
unattested prehistorical contraction /nk/ > / /.
There is no doubt that Proto-Turkic had an */h/ phoneme in the word
onset; this */h/ is retained systematically in Khaladj and sporadically in
137 See OTWF 75 for these etymologies and cf. OTWF 165-166 for o ‘easy’.
PHONOLOGY 81
other modern languages, and has left reflexes in Old Turkic. The matter
is dealt with in Doerfer 1980 (text of a lecture presented in 1976;
German translation Doerfer 1995), who showed that /h/ appeared in
some words which became parts of ethnonyms appearing in a Tibetan
document from the 8th century (see below) and that an Old Turkic onset
alternation yï ~ ï is a reflex of */h/. Doerfer 1980/1995 only deals with
cases where the vowel preceding sporadic /y/ is /ï/, e.g. (y)ïga ‘tree’,
(y)ïgla- ‘to weep’ or (y)ïrak ‘far’. Sporadic /y/ does, however, appear
also before other high vowels: We have yün- ‘to come up’ in Blatt 16
and 22 where most sources have ün-; ürt- ‘to cover’ has a variant yürt-
in
yürtgün
"!$#&(Mait
%('*)+,.167
-0/21436v5831)
7 % and yürt-ül- (Maue 1996, Mz 652 = T II S
ïšïg ‚cord, cable‘ corresponds to Qarakhanid
yïšïg; on the other hand, Uygur yirig ‘rotten’ corresponds to the DLT’s
irig (twice).138 Cf. also Gabain 1941: 52 and see the (approximately ten)
verbs discussed in the OTWF as mentioned in the glossary (858b-
859a): Most of these have high vowels in the first syllable; two
instances with /ö/ are less certain. /h/ did occur at some stage before
low vowels as well, as shown by the tribe names Ud hadaklïg ‘bovine-
footed’ and Hala yuntlug ‘possessing parti-coloured horses’ appearing
in the 8th century Tibetan itinerary on the peoples of the north (see
Ligeti
9:;=< 1971, Tezcan 1975 and Moriyasu 1980); the words hadak and
are the ones normally known as adak ‘foot’ and ala ‘parti-
coloured’. 139 Another term twice appearing with h° in that source is the
title known well as irkin from Orkhon Turkic and Qarakhanid sources.
The itinerary is not written in Turkic but in Tibetan, which could have
borrowed them at an earlier stage or from a dialect (like Khaladj) which
did (unlike Old Turkic as attested in the sources) regularly retain /h/.
Doerfer 1981-82a has argued that Orkhon Turkic also had /h/ as an
actual sound, from the fact that the runiform character A sometimes
(but not always) appears in the: onset when comparative evidence makes
us expect a word to start 9 : with , but never when it makes us expect that
a word starts with . This argument does not really seem to be
convincing, as the data he adduces are scant and inconclusive. Is there
any proof that this h did not exist as such in Old Turkic, then? The
runiform and Uygur script just had no such character, and the y ~ Ø
alternation, which is a rather common reflex of */h/ in Uygur (including
138 yirig / irig comes from Qarakhanid iri- / Uygur yirü- ‘to decay, rot’ and may be
> >
related to yiri ~ iri ‘pus’.
139 With other words in the itinerary, among them Ho-yo-hor referring to the Uygurs
(= Hui hu in Modern Mandarin Chinese, Hayhurlar in the late Kaš Xatun text presented
by Peter Zieme in Mainz in 2002), matters are a bit more complicated.
82 CHAPTER TWO
140 Texts reflecting a more spoken language, such that wrote e.g. -sA for the condition-
al suffix -sAr or käräk for kärgäk ‘necessary’, show no evidence for /š/ becoming /s/.
141 These instances are less likely to be reminsicences of the Sanskrit form.
84 CHAPTER TWO
The liquids /r l/ and the alveolar nasal /n/ are sometimes grouped
together as ‘sonants’ because they share certain traits of behaviour; in
some cases /z/ also behaves like them. The sonants have certain
characteristics in common, which also distinguish them from other
consonants: Among other things they can be used as first element in
consonant clusters at the ends of syllables; other consonants (e.g. the
voiced alveolar) appear with stop allophones when preceded by them.
Sitting astride on the synchrony / diachrony distinction on the one
hand and the word formation / morphology distinction on the other is an
irregular and badly understood alternation between /r/ and /z/. In
morphology we find /z/ in the suffix of the negated aorist, where the
positive aorist has /r/: -r (a variant of the suffix appearing after vowels)
vs. -mA-z. Other instances of the alternation fall more into the domain
of etymology. The cases of +sXz, the privative suffix vs. the formative
+sIrA- derived from it, sämiz ‘corpulent’ vs. sämri- ‘to be or become
corpulent’, sekiz ‘sharp-witted’ vs. sekri- ‘to jump, hop’, 13254 ‘pale’ vs.
sarïg ‘yellow’ (< 68739: ï-g) replacing it, yultuz ‘star’ vs. yultrï- ‘to gleam
or shimmer’, Ottoman yaldïz vs. Old Turkic yaltrï- ‘to glimmer’, töz
‘root, origin, element’ vs. törö- ‘to come into existence’ and yavïz ‘bad’
vs. yavrï- ‘to be or become weak’ may all be explained by the fact that
the /z/ appears at the end of its stem while /r/ is followed by a vowel; all
these instances are discussed in the OTWF. One might want to decide
that the /r/ is primary and the /z/ secondary by making the coda position
responsible or one could see it the other way around, considering the /r/
to be caused by the presence of a vowel after it. Looking at äsiz ‘woe;
alas’ vs. äsirkä- ‘to regret the loss of someone or something’, käz
‘notch’ vs. kärt- ‘to notch’, kïz ‘girl’ vs. kïrkïn ‘maidservant’ or közsüz
‘eyeless’ vs. kösürkän ‘mole’ 142 one would prefer the first explanation:
In all these cases the /z/ is at the end of the stem while the /r/ is not,
though there is a great variety in what follows the /r/. The final position
of /z/ in küntüz ‘during daytime’ vs. /r/ in the composite suffixes
+dXrtIn, +dXrAn and +dXrtI points in the same direction. There is a
related alternation z ~ rs in tirsgäk ‘elbow’, presumably from tiz ‘knee’,
and borsmok ‘badger’ and borslan (a jingle with arslan), both in the
DLT, presumably from boz ‘grey, grey-brown’. Here, again, the /z/s are
at the end of the stem while the /rs/s are inside theirs. The same
explanation could be appropriate for köz ‘eye’ vs. kör- ‘to see’ and
kutuz ‘raving dog etc.’ vs. kutur- ‘to rave’, taking into account the fact
that verb stems appear much oftener with suffixes than nominal
stems.143 All this does not help us on in a case like tägzin- ‘revolve,
rotate, travel about’ (with derivates and /z/ cognates suc h as ;<5=>@?A%B ,
tägzim, tägzig etc.) vs. tägrä ‘surrounding’, tägriglä- ‘to assemble
people around something’, tägirmi ‘around’, tägirmän ‘mill’, unless we
are ready to make some bold etymological assumptions. The
explanation could, however, very well apply to -mAz vs. -r, if we take
the suffix to have originally had an additional vowel.144 This vowel
would have dropped in the negative form earlier than in the positive, as
stress was on the syllable preceding -mA- in the first case but on the
suffix in the second. When it dropped from the positive form as well,
the °r# > °z# rule would no longer have been operative. Some of the
mentioned connections may admittedly be spurious, but our account of
the evidence has not aimed at exhaustiveness; there will in any case
remain enough evidence for the alternation r ~ z, which got so
intertwined with the Altaic question.145 The OTWF discusses a similar
alternation between /l/ and /š/.146
143 The stem of kör- might also possibly originally have been *körü-, seeing that the
aorist of this verb is körür and not ‘körär’ (as would be expected from simple single-
syllable verbs).
144 The aorist suffix has been connected with a Mongolic suffix which does have an
additional vowel.
145 Common Turkic /z/ appears as /r/ in cognates in Chuvash-Bolgar and Mongolic.
146 The note to HTs VII 670 derives ötlüm from ötür-, appearing to assume an /l/ ~ /r/
alternation; but no such alternation is attested in Old Turkic. I would consider it more
likely for ötlüm to be related indirectly, by coming from an -Xl- derivate of the base.
86 CHAPTER TWO
Phonotactic rules may have been different for genuine Turkic words
and for borrowings. bodisatv (with variant bodisavt; class of Buddhist
deities) was, e.g., probably pronounced with a coda cluster which was
not found in Turkic words, and probably mixed front and back vowels.
When writing down borrowed words scribes could always to some
degree be guided not only by the way Turks pronounced these, but also
by how they were spelled in their original languages and especially in
transmitting languages; this is true especially for religious texts, and in
particular in source languages like Sogdian, for which the same writing
systems were used as for Uygur. Still, Turkic phonotactics did interfere,
e.g. by putting vowels before /r/‘s which appear at the beginnings of
foreign words, or by occasionally breaking up consonant clusters.
Concerning borrowings, therefore, we cannot content ourselves with
looking at single spelling instances of words, but look at the whole set
of variants, to see how pronunciation and spelling might have evolved
in the context of the conflicting tendencies of Turkisation on the one
hand and learned rendering on the other. To give just one example, the
word signifying ‘planet’ spelled as KRX cannot automatically be
expected to have been pronounced as ‘grax’ and get transcribed as
gr(a)x just because it had an onset cluster in Sanskrit; the Turks might
just as well have broken up this onset cluster. Nor should one
automatically assign changes in borrowed lexemes to the influence of
Turkic: If Sanskrit bodhisattva appears in Uygur also as bodisavt, the
loss of the coda vowel should have taken place already in the Aryan
dialect which served as source of the borrowing; the metathesis tv > vt
might be an internal Turkic matter but could also have existed in an
intermediate language through which the word reached Uygur; the
shape of a lexeme in the ultimate source language is not really relevant.
What interests us primarily in this descriptive work are the synchronic
rules which can be extracted from our material: e.g. the fact that all
parts of Old Turkic show quite a number of borrowed words with onset
/l/ as compared to the scarcity of onset /r/, even though both are equally
barred from original Turkic phonotactics.
147 The generally attested derivate from tägil- ‘to be blinded’ is tägl-ök. The additional
second vowel is more likely to be secondary (as with the next word mentioned) than to
have been retained from the original verb base. Cf. ya 5 ïlok < ya5 ïl- in U II 87,54 and
basurok < bas-ur- in Sh 6 798;:=<?>A@CBDFEGIHKJLJLJM:NPO QQ , where the old and widely attested
variants of ‘error’ and ‘oppressor’ are yaR S T k and basrok.
148 There appears to be another inscriptional instance in l.4 of part B of the Qara
Balgasun inscription (Uygur Steppe Empire): In a footn. to Blatt p.301 Thomsen
proposes reading nugoš[ak, basing his proposal among other things on Radloff 1894:
293. Orkun 1938: 38 followed the Finnish Atlas, which has the impossible n1wg1wr2.
149 Cf. +s2zn2 in Tuñ 35 in a back-vowel word. On the other hand, +sXz may have
been originally unrounded, as shown by the formative +sIrA- derived from it.
88 CHAPTER TWO
yumïš in BT VII B35 and also the accusative form ögiz+üg < ögüz
‘river’ in BT VII B31 and 33.
Backward raising influence is found in forms such as ešidtür- (e.g. U I
6,3 in a Christian text), eštil- and eštür- from äšid- UWVYX[Z&\)]^_a`2bc^ d e0f g
sources in fact have 13 instances of ešet- / ešit- / ešid- ‘to hear’ (with
derivate) vs. only two of äšid-. Thrice el(i)t-, which exists beside ält-,
and thrice elig for älig hWi&jk&lnmpokrq;s?ti
uwv xzy{0|?}~xY0{x
&&r3
homophonous with the w?CW&W& ;?0w z ¡0¢?£¤¦¥§¡+©¨«ª¬z
have come about through regressive assimilation. The emergence of iki
(not eki; see the end of section 2.22) from äki ‘two’ may have the same
explanation.150
Backward fronting can only take place when two words become one,
as Turkic words by themselves are front or back as wholes. We have
this phenomenon in bökün ‘today’ in bökün bar yaran yok ‘here today
and gone tomorrow’ (Mait Taf.118r12 = MaitH Y 12b27, colophon re -
edited by Laut in Ölmez & Raschmann 2002: 133) < bo kün ‘this day’.
Beside synharmonism and the mechanism described in section 2.51
which makes /o ö/ appear in suffixes in which alternating back and
front vowels are followed by /k/ unless the vowel preceding the suffix
is /u/ or /ü/, Old Turkic in addition had what can be called vowel
attraction. By this phenomenon (found in Kirgiz, Kazakh151 or
Turkmen), not only [o] and [ö] but also [e] turn up in non-first syllables
of Turkic words: Texts in Indian scripts show that /u/ was often realised
as [o] and /ü/ often [ö] and /i/ was sometimes realised as [e] when they
were preceded by these same low vowels (see section 2.22), with full
assimilation. Even more rarely than the last mentioned assimilation,
there sometimes also took place a lowering of vowels even when they
were not similar in roundedness: [e] could (rarely) cause [ü] to become
[ö] and [ö] could (rarely) cause [i] to become [e]. This is neither palatal
nor labial harmony but an attraction in the domain of vowel height. In
all of these processes it does not matter to which archphoneme a sound
belongs; members of /X/ are by no means more prone to assimilation
than members of other archphonemes, as maintained by various
scholars from Gabain to Doerfer. /o/ and /ö/ did exist in non-first
syllables of nominal and verbal stems with /o ö/ in the first syllable, as
shown by spellings in alphabets which make the distinction between o
and
¯®°4±&u²³zand
´L²µ¶²between
µ&·¹¸¦±&®=ºYö²µ&and
»¼z»¦½&ü²visible,
³z´L»Pº¾´L»=¼¿®0namely
ÀFÁ;³?±
Ãwthe
įÅYº±&Tibetan
»ÇÆL²º ºY»³Èscript
´µ and the
the Turkic-
150 The same process is responsible for Yakut ilii ‘hand’ and tirit- ‘to sweat’ which is
related to tär ‘sweat’.
151 See Erdal, 1994.
PHONOLOGY 89
152 The source of the unrounding in otra (e.g. DKPAMPb 13 or HTs III 334 and 339)
may be the case form in +rA, among the instances of which ‘middle’ fits in very well
semantically. otïra with helping vowel (e.g. Abhi A 109a9) is a further development.
Pure unrounding, as found in Turkish säksän ‘80’ and toksan ‘90’ < Qarakhanid säkson,
tokson (< earlier säkiz on, tokuz on) does not seem to occur in Old Turkic but is typical
for Mongolic (e.g. altan ‘gold’).
153 The editor has a wrong interpretation, as guessed in the EDPT; correct reading in
Maue 1983: 64, n.51.
154 By the editor misread as ‘töhö’ and translated as “Hirse”; read correctly by Maue
1983: 59 n.40. The /i/ of tögi ‘crushed millet’ would not have been roun ded.
90 CHAPTER TWO
155 Old Turkic has a transitive denominal formative +A- and an intransitive +U-. As
discussed in OTWF 477-8, Qarakhanid bošu- or bošo- is both tr. and intr., while only tr.
bošu- or bošo- was hitherto documented in Uygur, until Maue proposed his translation.
This would accord with our expectations, as it would be normal for +U- to be realised
as [o], were it not that the context of this instance is so fragmentary and that no other
intr. bošu- / bošo- seems to have turned up in Uygur. For /a/ to become /o/ seems
unusual for Old Turkic as a whole, however, and for the +A- formation in particular, as
we find unrounded ota-, kora-, tona-, tölä-'(*),+ -, kö- lä- and orna-. So word formation
will have to stay with its irregular tr. +U- as far as this verb is concerned, and can
assume an intr. +U- .0/2143657/3 8:9<;>=036?@=BA6C*;D/FEG/,5H3 8I1J7C*;D/2A03 KL8M=N3O1QPRE S TU V WNXZY[Y4XF\7]Z^
156 Wrongly spelled togunlug, which gives no sense. bog-un ‘articulation in a person’s
limbs or in the trunk or stalk of a plant’ – discussed in OTWF 305 – is no doubt an -Xn
derivate from bog- ‘to strangle’.
PHONOLOGY 91
twice nom+ug) appear to have /u/ after /o/ rather consistently; 23/12 has
ö_ lüg, [ö] _ dün, bölük and tözlüg in one sentence vs. numerous
instances of o – o elsewhere in the text.
In a few cases, the lowering of /U/ and /X/ takes place also when the
preceding syllable has /e/.157 It is noteworthy (and difficult to explain if
not coincidental) that /a ä/ do not cause such lowering. As these
environments are thus limited to the presence of low vowels in the
preceding syllable, the presence of the phonemes /o ö/ in non-first
syllables would not follow from these instances. Old Turkic non-first
syllables thus had /o ö/ as phonemes (e.g. in ïdok ‘sacred’), and in
addition [o] and [ö] as allophones when preceded by these same
phonemes.158
157 E.g. etgö özi (Maue 1996 Nr.50) < et-gü özi, c,d7e[fhgiMg,fj2k (TT VIII A36),
kertfhg*deZiMg,f (TT VIII A 33) < l,m,n@o pqr7s2t6q2p or uvFw@xMy*z7{Zy ‘world’ (TT VIII N4) < u v,w@x6|z{Z|
< } ~,@M 72
158 This was still doubted in Gabain 1974 § 23 and Zieme 1969: 43. As evidence
against the presence of /o ö/ in non-first syllables, Zieme mentions the adverb küntämäk
‚daily‘, analysing it as ‚kün+täm äk‘ with the particle Ok. I would rather analyse this
word as *kün+tä (y)mä (ö)k with two particles, and the vowel of (O)k elided; see
section 3.342 for mA as variant of ymä. The derivational suffix +dAm forms nominals
denoting similarity to the base noun, a meaning which does not suit this word. Cf. 7,7
‚thus‘ < ,O< .
159 See the section 2.52 for the possibility that this be read with an [ï] in the second
syllable and for the harmony rules for suffixation in borrowings in general.
160 I am only giving those instances where the reading as a is unequivocal; some
further spellings might be considered as well.
92 CHAPTER TWO
,N 2O[:¡ £¢¤¥¦¥,§¡¨N¢ª©¤N2¤NQ«¥¬h¥,®¬ ¨¤¯¯6°±:²³¢¬µ´¶¥7·H¸H¸º¹»[»[»¼»Z· 161
Evidence for this phonetic phenomenon in Semitic scripts is by no
means limited to Manichæan or pre-classical texts, as sometimes
thought; in TT X, e.g., we have tap-ag ‘service’ and the accusatives
sav+ag ‘word’, burxan+ag and arxant+ag, in KP kar-am, as-ag
‘benefit’ and tat-aglïg ‘tasty’ (beside u-ma-dam ‘I was unable’, which
has none of the lowering consonants). In the runiform ms. Blatt 14 we
read taš+ag alsar ‘if one takes the stone (acc.)’. 162 The phenomenon is
documented even earlier than Orkhon Turkic: Among the Turkic terms
appearing in Bactrian as edited in Sims Williams 2000 we have tap-
ag+lïg ‘revered’ in tex ts dated to the years 640, 679 and 682; the Greek
½¾2¿OÀ[¿:Á¡ÂÄÃRÅZÆ Ç²È@ɾÊÌË ÍNÀG¾2¿ÎËNÁÏÍÐÆ ËN¾2Ð6ÑÒÇ¿GÅ,À[¿:ÁÂhῳÅ,ÓÆÅÕÔÆ7ÀG½¼Æ ÆNÁ ÖÏ×NØ¡Ù Ú«ÛHÜÞÝß
spelling of the name + title tapglg saàQáQâ ã:äÏå²æNçè@äé êìë íªî«ïñðóò¡ôôÎõ0ö2÷
Doppelblatt) 56 is also better interpreted in this way.163
Occasionally we find what looks like the opposite process, low
vowels getting raised beside /r/ or /l/: arïla- < ara+la- ‚to intercede‘,
arïø ï < ara+ø ï ‚intercessor‘, övkilä- < övkä+lä- ’to be furious’,
ø ïlayu
bulït
ø ùúÎû* üù ‘like
/
bulït
a
cloud’,
ûQýøùúÎû*üù and þ ÿ ÿ ÿ
161 It has the accusatives aš+ag ‘food’ (2 and 8) and turmak+ag ‘remanence’ (22), the
deverbal formatives ak-ag ‘flow’ (7) and aba-g ‘protected’ (21), the +lXg derivates
tuprak+lag ‘having earth’ (18) and yag+lag ‘oily’ (19) and the adjective agar ‘heavy’
(12) < agïr. Also, however, the converb form asn-ap (17) ‘hanging (a neckace) on
oneself’ which has no consonant causing such a shift and suggests the ms. must have
been written by someone within the pre-classical spelling tradition.
162 And not tašïg, because the second vowel of the first word is implicit; it has to be
[a] and not [ï] because all other [ï]s of this text are spelled out explicitly.
163 HTs VII 2051 should, however, better be read as azkya tapïglïk tavar ïddïmïz ‘We
have sent a little present for reverence’; not ‘tapïglïg’ and as read by the editor.
164 Analogy from the common mun (")+*-,/.) could be the reason for the rounding of the
vowel also with unrounded bases.
PHONOLOGY 93
165 amal, another Uygur variant, is caused by the process described above, whereby /ï/
is lowered to /a/ through the contiguity of /l/.
166 Sims-Williams 2000 reads the name of a Khaladj queen said to be a Turkic lady in
a document from the year 711 as Bilgä Sävüg; the ms. has bilgah savoh; concerning the
last syllable, note that the script does not distinguish between different rounded vowels.
94 CHAPTER TWO
167 This is the only shape of the particle attested in Early Ottoman, whereas Old Turkic
/U/ otherwise corresponds to /U/ in Early Ottoman as well. Vowel rounding due to
labial consonants is much weaker in Western Oguz than elsewhere.
168 Sims Williams 2000 proposed an Iranian etymology for this word, linking it to
Avestan su - and its cognates. This proposal seems to be compatible with the Turkic
facts only if the rounding is secondary in the Iranian data as well.
PHONOLOGY 95
of $= ‘a big cooking pot’ (BT XIII 5,77 and elsewhere). töpö ‘hill’
presumably comes from *täpä, attested in the whole of Oguz Turkic
since early Ottoman. The possibility cannot be wholly dismissed that
täpä, bit-, mI, sivri, Azeri birä or Middle Turkic (Codex Comanicus
and Muqaddimatu ’l -Adab) beyi- ‘to dance’, none of which are attested
in Old Turkic, could also be the result of an unrounding process; this
could come from the fact that /ü ö/ do not exist in the Iranian languages
with which the users of these variants were in contact. Such an
explanation would not, however, cover instances such as bulït, suv and
kamuš, and if /p v m/ caused rounding in back vowels there is no reason
why they should not have rounded front vowels as well. There are
enough front words, moreover, where the rounding takes place in the
course of the development of Old Turkic (e.g. 4= ); the above list is
by no means complete.169
The verb ‘to be born’ has the shape tog- ten times in the (older)
BuddhKat but
WK "Lthe
' ¡shape
¢£T¤¥tug-
¦§T©¨more than
ª«¬«k a «dozen
®¯¤4¯ N©¤Q°«±times
«K¤in
¦§«the
:®¯¤(later) texts
¯²¨§T «
latter to be due to the labial raising influence of /g/.
Palatal consonants can front the vowel following them: We have
fronting after the consonant cluster [ñ³$´¶µ'· koñ¸¹º¼»4½¿¾» in a runiform ms.
(Miran c 5) and in ïnan¸º¼»4½¹ µ'·ÁÀWÂÃÄÅÆ Ç"ÈÉËÊ'ÌÍLÎÊ'ÏÁÐÒÑÓÔÖÕ+××ØTÙÉ Ú Û×ÝܱØ
(spelled with ñc). In Uygur script such phenomena could be detected
only if a velar consonant follows further on in the word. The /y/ was
probably the reason for the fronting of the vowels in an Uygur variant
of the adverb and conjunction yana to yänä, yenä, ynä ‘again;
moreover’, which comes from Orkhon Turkic yana.170 Among the
ÜÉÞßàá±Ê'Ï=ÇâÍ©ÑÏÈÔÇãζÔÊäß4ÍGÑÉÔåÇËÌÔæ¼æÔçtÑÇ yenä, yinä or ynä; the TT VIII
instance spelled as yñè was by Clauson read with a back vowel, but the
ñ may have been meant to indicate that the vowel was front.171 In
Semitic writing systems, the question of whether the synharmonism of
this word was back or front can be determined if it is followed by the
particle Ok, as it sometimes is. In Uygur we find yänä ök e.g. in TT X
17 and 358 and DKPAMPb 275 but yana ok e.g. in BT XIII 4,29 or in
169 It may happen, inversely, that rounded vowels change /é ê£ëìTêîí¶ê©ï kömüldürük
‘breast strap of a saddle’ presumably comes from kö ð ñ+ò ; Turkish has further examples
for this phenomenon.
170 Originally the vowel converb of yan- ‘to return’. Clauson (EDPT) ascribed the
change to the influence of the particle ymä, which does indeed show some similarity to
yana in both shape and meaning.
171 Cf. sön-ök spelled as söñok in TT VIII M 21.
96 CHAPTER TWO
ó/ô õöÖ÷øWùúû üý þËÿþ
172
In QB 643, 734, 3896, 3960, 4956, 5011,
6180 and 6343 the mss. fluctuate between yana ok and yänä ök with
some preponderance of the former in the older mss. B and C; in 3889
Arat writes yana ok against all three of them. The occurences in DLT
fols. 455 and 519 can be read either as yana or yänä in spite of the coda
alif. The Middle Turkic and modern Turkic languages as listed in EDPT
show both variants.
The change of ayïn- ‘to fear’ to äyin- documented in OTWF 591 may
be due either to the presence of the sound sequence /yï/ or to the
existence of äymän-, a verb with a meaning similar to ayïn- but hardly
related to it etymologically; or it may have been caused both by the
phonetic context and by the analogy. Where no ï > i change is involved,
back/front fluctuation is not unheard of in Old Turkic, but is certainly
rare. One example is tiši sadrak ‘gappy toothed’ in SP 21, whereas
‘gappy’ normally is sädräk. This is not a scribe’s error, as we also have
iröksüz sadraksïz tïš in MaitGeng 5 b 13 and the same phrase with
sädräksiz in 11 b 18 of that same text section.173
In borrowings, the presence of /k/ tends to front surrounding vowels.
This phenomenon (dealt with in Erdal 2002: 8-13) is relevant not only
for comparing shapes which the lexemes have in the different languages
but also for their shape within Uygur, as such words tend to fluctuate
between front and back variants and sometimes to show a harmony
discrepancy between the different syllables of the stem and between
stems and suffixes. Such a case is the term probably pronounced as šlok
or šlök (or šulok, šülök etc.), which signifies ‘stanza, verse’. Other such
cases are / / ïk ‘letter, character’ and / ïk ‘story
about a previous life of Buddha’ with coda /k/, kümut / kumut ‘lotus’
with onset /k/, šaki / šakï ‘name of an Indian family’ with medial /k /.
That front spelling of /k/ does not necessarily determine the harmony
class is proven by n1g1ws1k2l1r1 nagošaklar ‘lay believers’ in the
runiform ms. TM 332 (KöktüTurf p.1047), which has front k2 but back-
harmony letters for the plural suffix. When the last stem syllable was
front, harmony fluctuation in suffixes was still possible, as some scribes
might treat the stem as foreign by consistently giving it back-harmony
suffixation while some might adapt harmony to the stem.
172Edited by P. Zieme in the volume "!#%$'&(%) *) (eds. J.P. Laut & M. Ölmez, 1998).
173op- ‘to gulp down’ and öp- ‘to kiss, to sip a liquid’ also look like variants and may
even have been confused by speakers, but their similarity must be due to sound
symbolism.
PHONOLOGY 97
yantru < yan-tur-u (KT N11). These are evidence for the tendency of
the phoneme sequence /turu/ to get pronounced as [tru]. äštrügli, eštrüš-
and tuytrum, which we just quoted, also show /tr/ starting a syllable. In
an identical process, the suffix +dUrXk gets pronounced as +drUk or
+trUk in sakaldruk ‘throat strap on a headstall’ and kömüldrüx ‘breast
strap’ in Khot 21 and boyontrok in TT VIII A. I do not recall having
seen any clusters of three consonants beside instances of °Ctr° just
98 CHAPTER TWO
quoted; in all other cases syncopation takes place only when clusters of
two consonants result from them.
The fact that syncopation is outright rare in inflectional suffixes does
not necessarily mean that all inflectional suffixes must have been
stressed; This could merely reflect the greater need for active
morphemes to stay visibly recognizable in writing and audibly so in
pronunciation than for what was or had become a syllable in a lexeme.
Syncopation does take place under lexicalisation, as happened with tolp
‘completely’, which comes from the converb form tol-up (in M III nr.4
r11 still attested in this shape although already lexicalised). One would,
on the other hand, assume that Old Turkic stress was not much different
from that of modern languages: default stress on the word’s last
syllable, first syllable stress with the expressive adjective reduplication
and with the pronominal stem ka+, pre-stressed verbal negation suffix
-mA- and so forth. Adverbs could also have had first syllable stress;
under this heading, the instrumental and equative suffixes, which were
mainly in adverbial use, could have been unstressed. In BuddhKat 5 we
find that the instrumental form of (kü) kälig ‘magical appearance by
metamorphosis’ syncopates the second vowel to give kälgin; this could
mean that instrumental forms stressed the first syllable (cf. Turkish
án+\%] ^_]` ‘suddenly’).
The +lA- derivate from ogrï is generally spelled as ogurla- in Uygur;
in BuddhKat 11, which is written in Tibetan script, it is spelled as
ogrla- aTb'cMdfeg'e2hXaOi2j'kmlfn o pq%r s t>u>v'wUxy{z2|_}~2Wz2|M
xJ~
xUW~U'
“common people” use this pronunciation (which he doesn’t approve
of). It appears that the coda vowel of the base was first syncopated, and
that the cluster was then broken apart under the influence of rounding.
As a rule, however, rounding assimilation appears as descriptively
preceding syncopation: The rounded second vowel of akruš
(documented in the UW entry), e.g., comes from the dropped second
vowel of *akur-, the base of ak(u)ru etc.; šïšrun- in BT XIII 12 comes
from sïš-ur-un-, with the syncopated syllable contributing the rounding.
The DLT’s savr-uk- has its rounded vowel from the second, syncopated
syllable of savur-. This practice changed in some cases: *ögir-
ögr- ' only in M II 10,7, taken to be an early text for independent
reasons; all other texts have M
. In ötlüm, shown to come from ötä-
l- in OTWF 293, syncopation must also have preceded the rounding
effect. ör-it- ‘to arouse’ sometimes appears as ört-; when it does, we
find örtdüm in U II 85,26 and örtüp ¡¡£¢¤¥S¥§¦'¨ª©W«¤¬«
imperative örti® in BT III 1105 (all three texts are late).
PHONOLOGY 99
174 bar- ‘to go’ (because its preterite form is spelled with D and not T in the
inscriptions and because of its aorist vowel), kör- ‘to see’ (aorist vowel /ü/ and because
of the /r/ in spite of the relationship with köz ‘eye’), kïl- ‘to do’ (because of kïlï-k
‘character, behaviour’ instead of the expected ‘ kïl-ok’ and the aorist kïlïr in the early M
I 8,9, normally replaced by kïlur), si· - ‘to get imbibed etc.’ (because of the causative
si·¸ ¹ - ‘to swallow, digest’ instead of the expected ‘ si· -ür-’), yay- ‘to shake, upset, put
into disarray’ (because of an attested variant yayï- and a derivate yayï-k) and ay- ‘to
say’ (because of the ao rist form ayur < *ayï-yur). kïyï- ‘to hew, fell’ and *sezi- ‘to have
a suspicion or hunch’ also become kïy- and sez- starting with Qarakhanid, and note kïyï-
k ‘something cut obliquely’ and sezi-k ‘doubt’ with the suffix -(O)k.
175 This is not an instance of voice confusion, as this is an archaic text lacking this
phenomenon; nor does Qarakhanid have voice confusion.
100 CHAPTER TWO
words, in truly onset position.176 Although #m° < #b° is attested only in
Uygur, the process clearly took place when /ñ/ had not yet become /y/:
Otherwise words with /ñ/ in the second syllable, such as meyi ‘brain’ <
*bäñi, would not have been involved (see the end of section 2.33).
Since there was no phonemic voice opposition in the onset, the actual
pronunciation of onset stops may actually have varied freely; i.e. onset
/t/ may, on occasion have been pronounced quite softly or onset /b/ may
have lost its voice, making them sound more like /d/ and /p/
respectively.177 When we find that Castren in the middle of the 19th
century noted a number of Karagass (= Tofa) words with /d/ in the
onset178 which all have onset /d/ in Turkmen as well, we can well
conclude that Proto-Turkic too allowed these sound to appear in these
words. They could possibly have had a voiced (or lenis etc.) onset also
in some variants of Old Turkic, e.g. in Orkhon Turkic. Copies from
foreign sources such as darni º¼»M½W¾2¿À2Á Â
ÃÅÄUÆ dyan ‘meditation’ or dentar
‘elect’ were spelled with onset D, presumably pronounced as [d]. The
spelling tarni which we find in AlttüSogd 251 no doubt reflects this
same pronunciation, the T Ç'È%ÉÈHÊËÌÍËÎ'ÏÑÐ
Ò5ÈÓWÔÕÖ'×È/ÐUÇ'È8ØÉXÒMÎÖÎ'ÔËRÊÐËRÒÎTÙ ÚÛÝÜ
The only voiceless consonant phonemes which did not appear in onset
position in Turkic words are /p/ and /š/. This is the situation in runiform
sources and in the Uygur-Khotanese word list (where Khotanese terms
do appear with onset p). Nothing can actually be said concerning onset
/p/ in texts in Uygur and Sogdian writing, as b and p are there expressed
by the same letter. In sources in Manichæan writing the onset /p/ of
borrowed elements is retained: Zieme 1969: 59 has them listed.179 A
fluctuation bušï (4 times in M III Nrs. 11 and 12) vs. pušï (5 times in
Xw) for Chinese pu shi ‚alms‘ may either be a sign of adaptation to the
Uygur distribution of labials (seeing that this was a term in common use
among all Uygur societies) or reflect uncertainty concerning the
pronunciation of Chinese /p/ (now spelled as b in pinyin and distinct
176 Another possibility is that onset *#m° prehistorically became #b° except where it
was protected by a following nasal. It is, at present, difficult to chose between these
logically equivalent possibilities.
177 de- ‘to say’ is widespread even among Turkic languages which otherwise do not
have onset /d/, including Old Turkic texts not showing voice confusion (e.g. twice in the
fragments in Sogdian script); the reason may have been clitic-like distribution, this verb
being exclusively used after quoted strings.
178 dag ‘mountain’, dara- ‘to comb’, dayak ‘staff’, demer ‘iron’, der ‘sweat’, dèl
‘tongue’, dirig ‘alive’, dîr ‘he says’, dîš ‘tooth’, dolo ‘full’, döiš ‘breast’, dü̂n
‘yesterday’ or düp ‘ground’.
179 baškok (no doubt to be interpreted as bašgok; the text has numerous confusions
among velars) has nothing to do with pašik ‚hymn‘, as stated there; see OTWF 158-9.
PHONOLOGY 101
180 ba-, bag, balïk, bark, b ò"óôò"õö ò÷óJøùûú ï, bat-, bäg, bäkiz, bäli ü lä-, bä(r)k, bäzä-õö ýúÝþ ÿ"õ
bel, bï, biti-, biz, bodol-õ'öø"ÿ"õ'ö%þ úÅþ õ
ö >ù -, böz, bugday, buka, bulït, buk, burúò
Jõ
burkï, burnaúJõö ø÷ó>ò ÿ -, buš-, buyruk, buz, buz-
and their derivates are
consistently spelled with p, while bar, bar-, baš, bälgü, bärü, ber-, beš, bïš-, bil-, bir,
bo, bol-, bošgut, böl-, budïk, bul-, bulgan-, bulu , burxan (in one instance merely bur,
which is the form of the term buddha as borrowed or reborrowed from Chinese; xan is a
Turkic addition) büt- and their derivates fluctuate between b or bh and p. Only buz
(‘passion’) is spelled exclusively with b, while bars, bayagut, baz, bägni, bogz+ï, bor,
bošo-, boyn+ï,
and bukagu are spelled with bh, there being only one example of
each (two of bayagut).
181 I think editors should spell borrowed words with onset p and not b if they have p in
the source language, as e.g. patïr ‘bowl’, which I have not found in any text in an Indic
script; it comes from Skt. !" #%$ and lacks the final vowel also in the Khotanese word
spelled as !"&"&$'#%( .
182 The fact that Qarakhanid sources also always have b does not, of course, mean
anything, as the original Arabic writing system (used by Qarakhanid authors) did not
have any p (and did not need any, as Arabic does not have this sound).
102 CHAPTER TWO
183 This distribution does not really need an explanation, seeing that it is relatively
common among the world’s languages. Practically all of the instances of Tunguz f
adduced for such comparisons appear before a labial vowel, so that /h/ may actually
have been the original sound and its labialisation in Tunguz secondary.
184 Cf. Volga Bolgarian bal
for Common Turkic baš ‚head’ (Erdal 1993: 107 -9 and
122 and T.Tekin 1997), Mongolian eljigen for Common Turkic äšgäk ‘donkey’
(Khaladj äšgä) and so forth. Classical Mongolian [š] is an allophone of /s/; it had no
phoneme /š/ and all Mongolic cognates of Turkic /š/ involve an /l/.
PHONOLOGY 103
185 The modern Chinese word of this shape and meaning originally had a final
consonant which should have been borrowed into Old Turkic; what we have appears to
have resulted from contamination between that word and Turkic ù ï: ‘dew’ etc., attested
(together with verbal derivates) in the DLT and in many modern languages.
104 CHAPTER TWO
Skt. ú+û-üýþ show onset /n/. nayrag ‘characteristic mark of Buddha’ may
be an early loan from Mongolic, which also has a related verb naira-;
this noun is attested already in the Mait. ïnaru ‘forward, onward’ lost its
onset vowel in Qarakhanid, appearing as naru both in the DLT and the
QB; by that time, onset /n/ appears to have become acceptable for
common pronunciation. At least some variants of Old Turkic may have
had (free or conditioned) alternation between the pronunciations of /l/
and /n/ in onset position, seeing that they are considered equivalent for
ÿÿ
xÿhÿ!"#$ÿ%'&!)(**xÿÿ%+,.-0/21,"43
106. The BuddhKat text in Tibetan script writes thrice lom for nom
‘teaching’ ; the editor’s note thereto mentions that the old name of Lop
in Lop noor in Xinjiang was Nop. Old Turkic 5768 ïn ‚falcon‘ appears in
Mongolian as 9:68;<9 ; the latter may be the source of the word, since
onset /n/ was normal for originally Mongolic stems. lom and 5'68 ïn
could both have resulted from nasal dissimilation, as found in
(Mongolic) Dagur, which also has lom (and also e.g. in Spanish alma <
Latin anima). Lop cannot be explained in this way, however, nor can
Mongol 9:6:=>6 8@? > 576@AA)68 ‘male relative on mother’s side’ on l.96 of a
recently published text.186 The common Turkic plural suffix +lAr is no
doubt related to its Mongol synonym +nAr; it also shows /l/ where the
latter has /n/.
A word starting with /l/ and retaining it in onset position is attested
already in Orkhon Turkic: In BQ S10 we find lagzïn ‚pork‘. lu
‚dragon‘, lenxwa ‚lotus‘, lim ‚pillar, beam‘, labay ‚a shell; a pumpkin; a
musical instrument‘ lurzï ‘stick, club’ or 5768 ïn ‘falcon’ are terms found
in Uygur not linked to any religious system; the terms starting with /l/
borrowed in religious contexts are, of course, much more numerous.
la+la- ‘to slash, cut in stripes’ is derived from a Chinese term using the
formative +lA-.
/r/ is hardly ever attested in onset position; one example is B 6!CD6:EF ï)rt
‘lapis lazuli’, which comes from Sanskrit BHG IKJ:LMONQP7M .
The main strategy for getting rid of unusual onset consonants of
borrowings was to put a vowel before them, usually the same as the one
following them. Thus commonly with borrowings with /r/ in the onset,
e.g. in aram ay, the name of the first month in the Indian year, << Skt.
NQJRSM , orohit(a)k << Skt. rohita(ka), the name of a devout fish (U IV D
119 and a fragment in the note thereto), ärdini ‚jewel‘ << Skt. ratna
(still attested as rtni / rdni / rddni 12 times in Manichæan texts),
186 A.v.Gabain, ‘Ein uigurischer Maitreya-Text aus der Sammlung Tachibana (aus
dem Nachlaß herausgegeben von Peter Zieme)’. Berlin -Brandenburgische Akademie
der Wissenschaften. Berichte und Abhandlungen 9(2002): 225-246.
PHONOLOGY 105
orohini, the name of a constellation, << rohinT UWVYXOZ>[QXQ\ ïn and arsïyan (BT
III 74 etc.) as variant of rasayan << ZQXK[Q]H\)X^:X@V or XOZ_ ï ‚a holy man‘ <<
Skt. r̀s̀a . See the UW for the shape of this latter (spelled with onset R at
b'cd@egfihjfklmhj)egfdjn!c@eShjoqpYrstvuwtxyz{2dj|jlf}rh~cjdjlKjYe*cf
alef in
Sogdian). Cf. araxu #
#7D
v%%K urum ‘Byzantium,
i.e. Eastern Rome’ in BT III 1036 and e lsewhere. Note, though, that,
which shows that, at least In the dialect of the Uygur steppe empire the
same happened with onset /l/: lu ‘dragon’ appears as ulu in Tariat W 2.
The common binome öl šï ‘moisture, wetness’ appears as öl ïšï (or
perhaps with secondary fronting as öl iši) in U 2381 r10 edited by Peter
Zieme in AOH 55(2002): 281-295.187 Foreign words with an onset /z/ or
! *¡.¢£¤!£!¥<¦£§¦¡¨£!4©£ªg¡K¢£§«¬«*
z(ä)rwa is still attested in a ms. in
Sogdian script but appears as äzrwa everywhere else; the astrological
term ®@¯° is attested in TT VIII as ±!®@¯° .
Another way to get rid of unusual onset consonants was to drop them,
as with /r/ in akšazlar ‘the ²Q³O´Dµ¶H·K¸·K¸ ¹»º%¼S½¾O¿ÀÂÁÃKÄgÅ awrap << Skt.
raurava (Mait 83r22 and 23) and Æ:ÇÆ!È)ÆOÉQÊ Ë7ÌvÍ ÎQÏ!ÐÑ Ò7ÓÔÕ×ÖØ,ÙÚ ÛÝÜQÞ:ßáà)âãÓä
pronunciation of the latter is secured by its alliterating with several
words all starting with /a/. /l/ could get dropped in the same way: Two
examples of ala- < la+la- ‘to slash’ (see above) are mentioned in
OTWF 441.
187 The binome (and not just ïšï / iši by itself, as translated by the editor) here appears
to be a euphemism for ‘urine’. To connect this iši to Turkish iì í - ‘to urinate’ does not
imply disconnecting it from šï; I take the Turkish verb to be secondary.
188 The second part of the Mongol (Secret History) female proper name Alan îYïHð no
doubt represents the same source.
106 CHAPTER TWO
grantha ‘a treatise, section’. 189 For šlok ‚verse‘ we have variants like
šulok and šülök (first vowel possibly to be pronounced as [ö]), which
are assimilated to Turkic pronunciation. Clusters in the syllable onset of
foreign words are often broken apart by high vowels, especially in late
texts; e.g. may tri ñ may ti ri. We even find such phenomena in Turkic
words, e.g. titirä- for titrä- òó%ôõóö÷øù#ú'÷ûü ýwþÿKöþóöþ ÷
ÿ
that into the syllables tit and rä would place /r/ into syllable onset,
which is, in Old Turkic, also avoided where possible. Occasionally
there is a low vowel, as in ‘trident’ (Scripture of the ten kings,
the 2nd court).
dyan ‘meditation’ is, however, spelled as a monosyllable 14 times in
!ø#"
ö %$ &('*)ö÷+,ø
þù#ú.-
ó%÷ ó / 10
ö÷ gú7÷ ó ÿ 2
ó ÷ ö÷þ@ú)öôKÿ,ÿ017þó7ôKÿ / 3
ô Ýó ÷
scribes. We should also remember that dyan has survived unchanged to
this day (in Altay Turkic).
Chinese onset [ts] (and perhaps [dz]) are often simplified to [s] (and
[z]), e.g. in the forms suy ‘sin’ and sa4 ‘barn’ which appear beside the
5576 common tsuy and tsa4 . tsuy ‘sin’ became suy in Xw 218, 219 and
more
'þÿ ÷þDö ú 8- %$ '9ô+:#çÿ ;
ó÷ ó þ </=/ ÷ö÷DÿOó>góöþó%÷-@?BA÷÷CAD EDFGHJILKNMPORQ+S
(1987): 128 ff. and the note to HTs VIII 389 for further examples.
Another process was for the cluster to get preceded by a vowel, as in
astup T2UVI3W XYDZ\[
]^_a`bcd8beDfhgi ästiramati ~ isdiramati (frequently in
Abhi) < Skt. sthiramati.
In words of Turkic origin onset clusters came up secondarily: In
section 2.403 we discussed the cluster tr°, which comes either from a
syncopation of the sequence /turu/ or from the introduction of an
intrusive /t/ to break up clusters like /lr/. The diminutive suffix +kIyA, <
+kIñA (still appearing as +kinyä in an early Uygur text, M I 23,32) is
practically always spelled as +kyA in Uygur, with an onset cluster. This
includes some but not all Bij!kDl#monpRqrLY!pst+qPu azkïya is spelled in three
syllables in Maue 1996 4,75 and 95, oglankïya in four syllables in
Maue 21 Nr. 109. Moreover, as pointed out in UW 155b under
vDwxvyz{ |~}+vy , a bisyllabic pronunciation of the suffix is called for also
189 Auxiliary vowels as in anantïrïš ‘one of a set of grave sins’, ardïr ‘a moon station’,
šastïr ‘doctrinal text’, patïr ‘leaf’, va ïr ‘thunderbolt; diamond’ or apïramanï ‘quality
which a bodhisattva has incommensurately’ should in principle be transcribed to accord
with vowel harmony, since they get introduced in Turkic and not in the source
language; some of them alternate with alef more than they would do if they had a front
pronunciation. Cf. Erdal 2002: 19-20.
PHONOLOGY 107
190 Röhrborn thinks the fact that the final alef is written separately would also speak
for a bisyllabic pronunciation; this spelling (found also in aya ‘palm of the hand’)
probably intends to preclude a reading as +kIn.
191 The DLT has yegirmä as main entry and yegirmi as ‘variant’. Three among its four
instances are not vocalised in the first syllable; in the fourth a fath was crossed out by -.
a second hand and replaced by a kasra.
108 CHAPTER TWO
192 To judge by some spelling statistics, high vowels may have more readily gotten
syncopated than low vowels: yegirmi appears to get spelled more often without vowel
than yarat-.
193 Unclear also because they are so few compared with the normal spelling.
194 Thus the UW entry with question mark, while Hamilton simply writes ’’MR’X ; to
me it looks like a Y corrected to an alef.
195 In one ms. in Sogdian writing \^]`_
a#]bdcfeghi_
a#jdckhml)eonGp cf]rqs]t u vxw
y{zy v#|O} ~ 3#
A
once find the postposition eyin spelled as ’Y’YN , which might have been meant to be
read as (bisyllabic) e’ in. This is not sufficient evidence to assume the existence of a
medial glottal stop in Old Turkic; it might be a mere error or a matter of spelling.
PHONOLOGY 109
^ê ë 196
ì)írîSee
ï
îsð¾ï^ñ OTWF 425 for the shape of this noun. I know of no Old Turkic examples for
197 Words like üst or ast, which appear in the EDPT, are nonexistent in Old Turkic;
these two are misrepresentations of üstün and astïn, formed with the orientational
formative +tXn.
198 In Uygur (and Middle Turkic) üsk ‘presence’ the first element is not a sonant, but
this word is always used with possessive suffix; i.e. /sk/ never appears in phonetically
final position. In late texts, üskintä often undergoes metathesis to give üksintä.
110 CHAPTER TWO
vowel between the two final consonants. Such vowels sometimes ap-
pear even in ‘normal’ Old Turkic clusters, leading to fluctuations such
as elt- ~ elit- ‘to lead’ or, in late texts, bürit- beside bürt- ‘to touch’. 199
The limitation that the second consonant of Turkic coda clusters had to
be voiceless meant that the formative -(O)k could drop its onset vowel
after stems ending in /r/ in words such as kör-k ‘shape’, ör-k and tur-k
‘length, height’ whereas -(X)g couldn’t: Cf. sor-ug, sür-üg, tur-ug, ur-
ug and yör-üg. The formative - ò ó·ô,õ5ö appears to come from the
morpheme sequence -(X)n-(X)š after the second formative lost its vowel
and would have given the impossible cluster *nš; cf. OTWF 275-277.
The word for ‘sheep’, originally koñ, is in Uygur generally spelled as
koyn. In MaitH XX 13r29 the editors write ‘koy(u)n’, presumably
thinking that the word had two syllables; that is unlikely because no
second vowel appears in any of the rather numerous instances. For a
similar reason it is also unlikely that (as Doerfer 1993: 139 thinks) it
was an archaic spelling for what had already become /y/. Nor is it very
likely that there should have been a coda cluster consisting of the
consonants /y/ and /n/ as there is a voiceless consonant as second
element in all such clusters. The spelling YN could have been meant to
indicate retained [ñ] or nasalised y, but then the question is why this
sound should have been retained throughout Uygur in this word and not
in others which also had /ñ/ in the coda.
Across syllable borders there are very much more possibilities for
having consonant sequences, though not everything is possible;
evidence is listed in Clauson 1962: 169. Even in this position, clusters
occasionally get simplified; tisilär for titsi+lär ‘students’ in BT V 13 or
taysï for taytsï in HTs VII 967 must be phonetic spellings;200 BT V 13
also shows tt > t and kk > k even across morpheme boundaries. /÷Yøúùû,ü
quite possible in the beginning of syllables, e.g. in orýþÿ ‘flag; general’
and orýþÿ ‘general’, közý ‘mirror’ or yalýþ ‘human being’ (< yalïý +u-
with syncopation). Scholars have generally not trusted the mss. in this
matter, emending to or(u)ýþÿ (very often), yal(a)ýþ (e.g. in MaitH XX
13r16) or köz(ü)ý (e.g. in DreiPrinz 57). Later Uygur did introduce
helping vowels here (see next paragraph), but there is no reason to
assume that all speakers did so or that this was an early phenomenon.
199 Alternately, elt- could have been syncopated from elit-, and bürit- could have come
about because the verb was re-interpreted as an -Xt- causative (which had the shape -It-
in late texts.)
200 The latter is called “falsch” by the editor, who apparently expected Uygur and
Chinese phonetics to be identical.
PHONOLOGY 111
The shorter forms are actually attested more often and are highly likely
to be the original ones.
In relatively late texts medial clusters, especially ones involving /r/,
secondarily get broken up by ‘helping’ vowels; e.g. ödräk ‚duck‘ >
ödiräk, sädiräk (ET
sädräk ‚sparse‘, otïrakï (Abhi
A 109a9) < otra+kï (< orto ‘middle’), !#"$ ïrayu ün- ‚to leap out‘ (Suv
315,5, BT XIII 19,76) < !%"$&" -, yaltïrïyu (BT III 997) < yaltrï- ‚to
glimmer‘, amïran- (UigTot 116) < amran- ‚to love‘, amuru, amïru <
amru ‚continuously‘, basurok ')(* + ,.-0/1#235476
8 basuroklug (BT XIII
39,22) < basrok, oru9 u(t) < or9 u(t) ‘general’ (examples in OTWF 79 -
80), kä9 iräg (BT III 972) < kä9 räg, mü9 ürä- (BT III 270) < mü9 rä-,
ma9 ïran- ‚to call out‘ :);<>= ?.@BA
CD
EGFH
IKJMLNLPO0QA
RS maT ra-n-, öT
UWVX <
öY
TZG+[%\^rä (U`
bdIII
]
_a c>e
889),
fgcihj#klbntägärä
mnop
qr<klb7tägrä
skutwvNx(TT
y{z|[%VII
}~e[#29), y
T N
eso Z~<\ soT +ra (BT III
ïra
uturu ‘facing’
replaces normal utru, this is likelier to come from such a process than to
be a case of retention of the original stem \wfcxvowel.
y{z[>eThe
Yadditional
btc
kGqcvowel
kjtj
in the word spelled sädiräk (< sädräk
syllable in verse; this could mean that a scribe introduced it and not the
author.
Equally in late texts auxiliary vowels occasionally appear also when
no /r/ is around: with / / we have, e.g., ta usok ‚wondrous‘ (Ernte 62,
BT XIII 46,35), from ta +sok, ä 5W -miš (BT III 381 as
discussed in UW 381), ö~ < ö +lüg (BT III 1010) and ö
W> <
ö +dün (BT III 229); with /l/ e.g. tägülök (KPZieme 1) < tägl-ök
‚blind‘. Another stem involving the difficult cluster /r / may have
occurred in *ïr a- ‘to shake (tr.)’, which was either broken up by an
anaptyctic vowel as in ïrï ag (BT XIII 25,8), or underwent metathesis
as in ï rag (BT VIII B 88; ¡ ¢£~¤¥§¦>¨K©ª¬«~®¯±°¤#²
³5´µ¶ W·¥±¢
¤¥)¤¸¹ W·gº¤¥n ¢
ïrgag (many examples; see OTWF 188).
/r/ is prone to get dropped. This sometimes happens even in permitted
coda clusters: bärk ‘tough’ normally appears as bäk, tärtrü ‘inverted,
crosswise, in the wrong direction’ often as tätrü (documented in OTWF
729) and kurtgar- ‘to save’ often as kutgar- (OTWF 735-6). +lAr+kA
becomes +lAkA in ulug ïšlaka ‘to great affairs’, ašlaka ‘for feasts’ and
kïšlaka ‘during the winters’ (DLT fol. 294) and bilgäläkä ‘to the wise
ones’ (f ol. 112). The /r/ of the formative -dUrXk is dropped in
burun+duruk > burunduk ‘nose ring’, where the base also has an /r/; see
OTWF 104-5. The postposition birlä gets simplified to bilä in later
112 CHAPTER TWO
Uygur. ketmän ‘hoe, mattock’ may come from kärt- ‘to notch’. 201 The
conditional suffix -sAr consistently appears as -sA not only in
Qarakhanid and such late lay texts as the ones collected in Heilk but
also in BuddhKat (though very rarely in the numerous examples for the
»¼½
¾~¿WÀu¿¼½
ÁÂ{üĽ
¾Å¿½ÇÆ{ȧÉdÊËÌ{ÀlÍ#Î~ÀuÏ)Ð)ÑÒÓÈuÒn¿¹Ï¼~»» asionally dropped in the
Á¼ÈÔ¿¹ÏÕÀBϧÄ
ÃÃÕ¿ÎÖÁÏØ×5ÍÂÂNÙnÚÊ
ÍÛÆ{ÈÔÉ7ÊËÌÜËiÏ#ÙÝÚPÚÞ5ßlßNßiàáÊ
ÁÏÁÛ½Ä~Ë¡â
Í7ÈؼÃ
instances of the loss of /r/ as a type of haplology (section 2.412).
Double consonants often get simplified, double /l/ e.g. in köã ülüg <
köã ül+lüg (U III 39,25, UigOn II A 1, TT X 276), äå~æå~çÓè é < äåæå
ççÓè é
(BT V 21,456), kuluk < kul+luk (KP 23,3), talan- (Heilk II p. 4,
colophon) < *talu+la-n-, elän- < el+lä-n-, yeläyü ‚ostensible, apparent‘
< yel+lä-yü etc.; tükälig < tükäl+lig is especially common. Thence, elig
‚king‘ no doubt comes from el+lig ‚having a realm‘, olar ‚they‘ <
*ol+lar202 and ulug ‚great‘ possibly < ul+lug „having a sole or base‘.
Simplification is most common with velars, e.g. korku < kork-gu
(DKPAMPb 81). We also have simplified dative forms: ê ègæ
è ê å
ëåé i <
ê èæ
è é +kä tägi (Xw ms. R r 16), suvsamaka ... katïglanmaka (for
-mAk+kA) in TT II,1 37-38, oruka < oruk ‚path‘ +kA (M III 7 III r 3),
adaka < adak+ka (M I 5,13) konaka < konak+ka in BT V 13 etc.;203 the
dative spelled as irinì ä in Manichæ an writing in M I 5,14204 can explain
the shape of the pronominal dative. Velar simplification is usual in
word formation, e.g. yarlïka- ‚to pity‘ < yarlïgka- and agrïkan- ‚to feel
pain‘ < *agrïg+ka-n-; talgok ~ talkok ‚fastening peg‘ < talk-gok, sukak
‘male gazelle’ (DLT et c.) presumably < *suk-gak, from suk- ‘to thrust
(with the horns)’ and yulkak (or yulgak) iš ‘swindling’ < yulk- ‘to get
some use or profit from something’ (Mait 62 v 14) with the same
simplification. We have the evidence of DLT fol. 202 that tikän ‚thorn‘
comes from tik-gän, i.e. ‚the stinging one‘. kömür ‚coal‘ is derived with
the formative -mXr (OTWF 390), either from köñ- ‚to burn‘, or from
köm- ‚to bury‘; cf. êíî åæ ‚a round loaf which is buried in hot ashes‘
with the formative -ïðÝñ , which forms names for dishes (OTWF 319).
201 kärki / kärgi ‘adze’ may come from the same stem but in the latter two lexemes the
/t/ and not the /r/ is dropped. The simplification ärklig > ärlig is discussed in the UW
entry for ärklig.
202 Unless ol, whose /l/ has no parallel anywhere in the language, came about through
metanalysis of olar.
203 Note that all the sources quoted here are Manichæan; this need not be a phone tic
characteristic of a Manichæan dialect, however, but could also be due to laxer (or
perhaps more phonetic) spelling conventions.
204 Same passage as the previous instance. iri ò +kä would have been normal. For the n
before the ò cf. irin ó for irió four lines before and also further on in the text; such
spellings are typical for pre-classical texts.
PHONOLOGY 113
Alveolars are simplified mainly in late texts, e.g. ardaš < art+daš
(eight times
ôuõ
ö
÷¹øÛù úûÖü#in ýþ5the ÿ QB), kutadur- < kutad-dur- and örlätür- < örlät-dür-
kotur- < kod-dur- (twice Suv). However, cf. also
aytïlar < ayt-tïlar in BT V 13, a Manichæan source. 205 We do not know
whether such simplification took place in the language of the runiform
inscriptions, as double consonants are there usually spelled as simple
ones ú ø(cf. T.Tekin 1968: 47-48).
ÿ#÷öÇ÷ ÿ#÷ÝÿÔÿ#÷
is already attested in Orkhon
Turkic: I agree with the reading !" ‘stove’ in Tuñ 8. !" < *ot+!#"
is attested also in three among six mss. in TT VI 86; the rest of them
and some late texts write %$!#" (see OTWF 108), but there probably
was not&')much (+*-,/.1phonetic difference:
02'435&')(.769 8;:<5,=?>@2APhonetically
B CDEFHGI speaking, it all amounts GI
to [Vtt (TT IV A 57) < edär-t+
(QB) ‘tracker’, J#KL M L (QB) NOJ#K#L -t+M L and KQPMP#K (DLT) < köt+MP#K
‘buttocks’. If JSRTSM ï ‘medical doctor’ comes from * ot+TSM +M ï ‘*a person
busy with small herbs’, it would show the simplification of double M .206
On the other hand, the form KTRM ïgsïzïn (= KTSM -ïg+sïz+ïn) quoted in
UWVXYZX\[^]S]_[`a[Hbcdfeg#hdji5ek/iWl5monqpog#rstvuX4dfwXs5sXotkQd
TC. ištin < x2y +tin in
Lo9,5 and Mi17,11 in SammlUigKontr 2 is again different:
i{}|~{ i{V2i5ei5eV5d
hvg#t%Zi5eX
Phonetically speaking, this is Vtz z
simplification could have been helped by parallelism with taštïn: We
find ištin nom taštïn el ‘(may) religion in the spiritual domain and the
state in the physical domain (prevail)’ already in M III Nr.27 v16.
2.406. Metathesis
In late texts there are metatheses of clusters with /r/, e.g. ördäk > ödräk,
bušrï ‘wrinkle’ < *bur(u)š- (cf. OTWF 344), sarya- (BuddhUig I 335)
< sayra- ‘to twitter’ , särki- (Hochzeit 32) < sekri- ‘to leap’ , orpak <
opra-k ‘shabby’ , buryuk < buyruk ‘minister’ , ä#HS < är ‘finger’,
ïrgag ~ ï rag, orto ‘middle’ > otra (and further otïra) and so forth.
ädräm < ärdäm ‘virtue’ appears in MaitH, which is not a very late text.
Among the variants kutrul- ‘to be saved’ and kurtul- the former is
205 OTWF 870 (index under „geminate simplification“) refers to further examples of
the phenomenon.
206
^/In H VII 1174, Arlotto had read a word to be analysed as kör- ^^ + +lär as
HTs
and Röhrborn 1994:108 had explained this as just such a simplification. In
his edition of the text, Röhrborn now sees two s, and in a note to the passage states
that a helping vowel is sometimes introduced in such cases, “um einer Vereinfachung
der Geminate vorzubeugen, ... wie im Falle von sak ¡¢ £¤H£ ¥ und ¦#§©¨5ª«¬©®¯f¨/° ±²^± ® (vgl.
AbitIst 103)“. The matter (and the passage referred to) are commented on in OTWF
114-115; it is, however, related to the alternation between - ³ ´µ¶^· (OTWF section 3.104)
and - ¸ ¹º»/¼½ (OTWF section 3.105), which is a more complex phenomenon.
114 CHAPTER TWO
probably the original, but both are rather common from quite early
sources on; see OTWF 667-8 for some of the examples.207 yaltïr- ¾¿WÀÂÁ
20,64) < yaltrï- ‘to gleam’ and ogurla- ‘to steal’ < *ogrï+la- (discussed
in OTWF 441-2) show /r/ exchanging places with an adjacent vowel;
see OTWF 313 for yogurt ‘yoghurt’ ~ yogrut ~ yorgut. In other cases /r/
gets dropped by dissimilation, as in ämirkäš- < *ämri-rkä-š- (BT III
990) or bakïr- ‘to shout’ < *bar+kïr- (cf. Mo. barkira- etc. and Turkish
ÃSÄÅÆÃÄÅvÃÄÇ7ÈÉÅ
- ‘to shout loudly’). Connectio ns such asÅHÄkükürt / kükrä-
‘to thunder’, tigirt / tigrä- ‘to clatter’, maÊ ïrt / maÊ - ‘to bellow’,
täpi(r)t+siz / täprä- ‘to move’ and in fact the relationship between the
formative +kIr- and verbs ending in velar + °rA- show how wide-spread
sound change around /r/ was in onomatopoeias.
In OTWF 569 we took täšgürüš- to come from tägš-ür-üš- by the
change /gš/ > /šg/; the process making täzgin- in the QB from the
common tägzin- ‘to revolve’ and üksintä ‘in his presence’ < üsk+in+tä
is similar, all involving velars and sibilants. OTWF 358-359 shows
-ËÍÌÏÎ and -ÎÐÌjË to be metathesis variants, the latter appearing after bases
ending in /r/ or /n/. Metathesis took place also with yalvak < yavlak in
AlttüSogd 89, with yamgur < yagmur ‘rain’ in Totenbuch. Qarakhanid
Turkic küzäd- ‘to guard etc.’ > küdäz- (together with derivates) may
have taken place under the influence of synonymous küd-.
207 kutul-, another early and widespread variant, could have come from contamination
with kut ‘good spirit’.
PHONOLOGY 115
208 The existence of ‘olturmiš’, made up in Johanson 2000: 62 as Old Turkic, is highly
unlikely in that language. The EDPT considers yartïm to be a secondary form of yarïm
‘half’, “with an intrusive -t-“. however, an intrusive t never appears before a vowel.
209 The use of K might have been meant to show stop (as opposed to fricative)
pronunciation at syllable onset; . elt-käy ‘(they) will convey (him)’ in M III nr.12 r7
does not mean too much as the text in several cases confuses voiced and unvoiced
consonants (yäg for yäk ‘demon’ etc.). The value of i should not be overrated either,
as the ms. may have had a source text in Uygur script. We can make the same
assumption for the Mahrn
= Müller, Doppelblatt), whose first part is dated to the
year 762, because the Uygur ruler is called ay tä
t bulmïš alp bilgä uy
and not xa! (confusion of alef and n "# ) and because ‘prince’ is, in that text (in
Manichæan writing) indisciminately spelled as TGYN, TKYN and TQYN (Manichæan Q
not being characteristic of back-vowel context).
116 CHAPTER TWO
210 A word spelled $% &' -s ( )*+ said in Johanson 1979: 73 to represent baš+sïz seems
not to appear in that text and I wonder where (if at all) it could have existed. If the
author created it to illustrate his point (which would in itself be legitimate), he does not
actually say so.
PHONOLOGY 117
The forms äm, än- (twice) and äm, äk (twice) in BuddhKat come
from ämgän- and ämgäk and thus show progressive assimilation in na-
sality. ö,.-/10 - < ögrän- in HTs VIII 43 is (if the N should not be inter-
preted as a superfluous alef) similar but regressive. A better known
form of non-contact regressive nasal assimilation takes place when on-
set /b/ is followed by a vowel and then a nasal; we then have /b/ > /m/,
e.g. in bän ‘I’ > män. um-du+2 ï ‘beggar’ from um- ‘to hope’ is spelled
as 3 054 312 ï 687:9;5<>=@?BADCFE.GH;I6HJK6HJD75LNML1OP1GRQTSFQUJWVTLXZY[VF\>YVUJ]J^6_?5VTQUJJ^68`a6cbdQGe6dL.7
in the point of articulation, since both /n/ and /d/ are alveolars.
A phonotactic phenomenon involving consonants and attested only in
back-vowel environment is that stops become fricatives before /š/. In
this
k]lFm1n
position, /k/ appears as [x] e.g. DLT fFgFh.ig - and Uygur fFgjh.ig.i - <
-ïš+a-; yaxšïngu ‘sleeve cuffs’ is attested in HTs VII 1292. 211 /p/
appears as [f], e.g. in yafšïn- ‘to adhere, be attached to’ < yapïš-, spelled
with f in Pothi 127, which is in Manichæan writing. This is a case of
assimilation, as spirants like š are, of course, also fricatives. Uygur
probably distinguished between oxša- ‘to caress’ and ogša- ‘to
resemble’ (/ g/ realised as a fricative); the latter is six times spelled with
h o8prqstuvNwexzy|{1}Bqs[tuvNwBs[~p5~s[~j ] with h as well. In the DLT,
however, where there was voice assimilation, both appear as oxša-.
In TT X 459 and 481, ïn+gar-u kör- becomes ï
1 (spelled
CYNGX’RW ) kör-, i.e. an alveolar nasal turns into a velar nasal:212 The
place of articulation has shifted backwards under influence of the
following velar.
In some words in some varieties of Old Turkic, /n 1@5Fj.HN
beside rounded vowels: Hamilton 1977 discusses a.o. kömül < kö
‘heart’. OTWF 99 and 104 document th e lexemes boymul < boyun+ and
kömüldürük < kö
1| + (which is also the source of Turkish gömlek
‘shirt’). Another instance is yürüm karak < yürü
karak ‘the white of
the eye’ in the Turkic -Khotanese hippological glossary (Wordlist 40).
211 Mark Kirchner has found exactly the same phenomenon in Kazakh.
212 The text writes ï] but Peter Zieme has confirmed for me the reading presented
here. This does not appear to happen elsewhere in published parts of the DKPAM, to
which the TT X text belongs. DKPAM instances in U III 36,17 and 53,42 are misquoted
in the footn. to TT X 459: In both places the edition has ïngaru kör- but should have
had ïn kör-, as visible on the facs.. This is also what appears in three other U III
instances.
118 CHAPTER TWO
213 Clauson repeats Giraud’s statement on p. ix of the EDPT. T.Tekin 2000: 76-78
retains this description, with numerous examples from Orkhon and Yenisey Turkic and
the IrqB ms. for stems ending in /l n r z m/. For velar contact he now gives, beside
kulkak and ärkli, also Ð ÑÓÒÔÕÒÖ_× ØDÙ Ú_ÛHÜÝßÞáàâãDäåÛHæZç8èé|êëDìDâ
íîáïÆâðñî íFïÆòÛHî óÞ8îôÜíjõ]ö.àâR÷ÜÛHø
in question is interpreted as ata+m+ka ‘to my father’ by Kurt Wulff, which makes it
regular since the dative suffix has a voiceless velar. We are thus left with är-kli as the
only real example for velars.
214 The Orkhon inscriptions have more than 80 examples of the nt/d ligature in back-
vowel words, more than 25 sequences of n and t in front-vowel words and only 11 cases
of the /n/ + alveolar sequence being spelled with the ligature in front-vowel words; there
is not a single example of the sound sequence /n/ + alveolar spelled without ligature in
back-vowel words anywhere in that whole corpus. The existence of the nù ligature
cannot be explained along the lines proposed by Johanson (possibly ant and úû ù or üû ù
were ideograms).
PHONOLOGY 119
215 The only such examples I have found in Orkhon Turkic are three instances spelled
yertä (vs. four of yerdä) in KT and BQ.
216 Thus already Zieme 1969: 35. Cf. also sabh ï for savh ï in Mahrni jlk?monOnp
217 Tekin’s etymology for kulkak (deriving it from a Finno-Ugric verb) is unaccept-
able, and the one proposed in OTWF 75 is problematic as it involves a rare derivational
suffix. The /k/ must be real, as it is also attested in the Brq hmr stu vwex+yEz and Manichæan
writing systems; a further Br{e|O} ~ 5)e
?E\O+09/E)EO5IO)
c+?)
‘*kulgak’ could have been taken to be the ultimate source if Oguz had been the only
dialect group with the variant kulak. kulak is, however, the general modern and Middle
Turkic form, found also in languages which do not drop /g/ after consonants. kulak is,
moreover, the general DLT and QB form, kul appearing in the latter when
120 CHAPTER TWO
demanded by the metre. K ' š(*),+ - knows of kulkak and kulxak as dialect forms. In view
of all this there is no way to link the variants kulkak and kulak by any known synchronic
or diachronic sound laws.
218 See section 3.282 for the participle suffix -(X)glI, with which the Orkhon Turkic
conjunction spelled as ärkli is no doubt formed. While the productive forms of -(X)glI
do not lose their onset vowel even when added to stems ending in /r/, such loss is found
in other suffixes (e.g. the -Xt- causative) and is probably an archaic feature.
219 Cf. the spellings .0/*1 2 354 (twice) and adrïl67354 in Xw 137-8 in Manichaean writing.
bošun67308 ï is also spelled with 9 in Xw. 187. Instances like kïlkalï with two dots over the
PHONOLOGY 121
why, e.g., +dA does not become ‘+yA’ after vowels or voiced
:<;>=@?A;>=
B=DC5?FEG=HCJI;?AKMLN;%O%KP7=RQSB=TVUBWTDKV?YXI
ES:IZ:I
B=TDKWO\[ ] ^`_bac^d^e
Spellings of d° or g° suffixes with t and k respectively after bases
ending in /r l n/ can generally be read as having [d, g] as against [f , g ]
for the unmarked sound contexts, and the spellings ärkli and kulkak
need not necessarily be counter-examples to Johanson’s theory: The k
may represent a voiced stop as distinct from a fricative. Crucially,
however, this interpretation is not obligatory, and a reading as [k]
cannot be excluded hjiklmWn<oSp<qSqsrto"uwv
om0xZyz{m0v
o|%munWm}z!~y>Jm
~%
writing system (where G does not imply fricativity) the replacement of
/g/ by /k/ after /r l n/ appears really to have taken place: The reassign-
ment to /k/ may well be historical fact, hinging on the possibility of
assigning [g] to /g/ as well as to /k/ at some stage in the language’s
history. Above I explained ärkli through the syllabification ärk|li.
Q in ms. TM 42b (U 4795) of Suv 34k 14 are meaningless, as we find agïr in the same
line and oglï in v13 also spelled with dots over the Q.
220 Possibly to be read as kapsa-, where the [p] could have evolved from [f].
122 CHAPTER TWO
continuants vs. stops, we are therefore for these forms left with the
explanation that /z/ was to be avoided at syllable onset.
221 Presumably in order to explain the early appearance of käräk, Doerfer 1993: 30
takes käräk and kärgäk to be different derivates from one source; this is impossible, as
there is no source in sight for käräk other than kärgäk, which comes from kärgä-.
PHONOLOGY 123
suffix -(X)gsA- becomes -(I)sA-; see OTWF 527 for details. This drop
appears to have taken place in late Uygur as well: There is no doubt that
arvïšïg ... äšidisärläri tïÚ ÛÜÝ ïšlarï kärgäk (BT III 731) signifies ‘They
need to wish to hear and to listen to the mantra’, that the first verb is
the aorist participle of an -(X)sA- stem.222 Note also äkün in
ChrManMsFr ManFr v 9 (an early Manichæan text), whic h may come
from *äki+gü+n ‚two together‘ if it is not an error but an elision of
intervocalic /g/.223 In the very common nälük ‚to what purpose‘, /AgU/
appears to have given /A/, assuming that this comes from the equally
common nägülük.224 I take kerü ‘back(wards)’ and bärü ‘hither’ to
come from *ke+gerü and *bä+gerü respectively, i.e. to have been
contracted from original directives in +gArU.225
The spelling of kovuš ‘groove’ as koguš (see OTWF 421) is also
‘hypercorrect’, but is evidence of a process /g/ > /v/ beside rounded
vowels. This process can be seen when kagrul- ‘to undergo mental
torture’ alternates with kavrul-, the latter apparently turning up even
several times in Mait; see OTWF 661. The verb kögädtür- ‘to praise, to
embellish in words’ is, similarly , spelled as kövätdürüp in Suv 135,12.
On the other hand the repeated appearance of äšgäk ‘donkey’ as äšyäk
in the DLT shows a process /g/ > /y/ in fronted surroundings in that
text.
2.412. Haplology
Haplology is found e.g. in orton < orto+dun, both ‘being in the middle’
(discussed among the +dXn nominals) and in kamagu < *kamag+agu, a
collective expansion of kamag ‘all’. tiksiz < tik-ig+siz ‘unstung,
unpricked’ in Suv 529,20 may not be an error in the strict sense, in that
222 It is thus (against the editor’s statement in the footnote) of identical form as the
Ottoman future. The Insadi (or better Avasadï) sÞ ßáàJâãáäbå*âæ ßGç7à%âèsèså0èsâ7ßGç7àVßáéâ,ê&ßáéç°ë®ì%íî
223 biz äkün, which can be read also as bizäkün as Z is never joined to the next letter,
appears in HamTouHou 15,3, TugFrühText 10 (spelled with S), perhaps in BT V 675
and in l.22 of the Manichæan h ymn edited in UAJb 16:221-2. Concerning HamTouHou
it had been thought that this is another instance of äkün; the context makes it likelier
that bizäkün was a place name, however, as proposed by Wilkens, the editor of the last
mentioned source, following an oral suggestion of Röhrborn.
224 Examples in the EDPT and OTWF 122. A sound change AgU > A apparently took
place also in the collective form bägät found in several 13th-14th century texts, as
documented in OTWF 82, and in equally late but Western bayat ‚God’, probably <
bayagut ‚well-to-do gentleman’. Other interrogative phrases which were reduced to two
syllables are ï0ð0ñAòôó < ï0ð0ñð ök, nägük < nägü ök and the DLT’s näräk < nä käräk (and
cf. Turkish niçin ‘why; what for’ < ne için and õ0öô÷,øsù ‘how’ < ne asú,û ).
225 The first is related to (instrumental) ken and to kedin, the latter in some way to bän
‘I’ and bo ‘this’.
124 CHAPTER TWO
it was presumably pronounced that way: Cf. yïglïg apparently for *yïg-
ïglïg in Abhi B 1404. In an instance like bo yarlïg ešidip (KP 18,8)
‘having heard this order’ yarlïg could have been simplified from
accusative yarlïg+ïg.
/VrVr/ is quite susceptible to syncopation: In aorist forms of stems
ending in °ur- in BuddhKat, alü addurlar comes from alü ad-dur-ur+lar
and olur comes from olor-ur. Similarly öü ýþSÿ in Heilk I 14, which
signifies ‘it cures’ and must come from *ö -tür-ür. The
ms.
TT VIII L has forms such as tükärmäsär < *tükä-r är-mä-sär (12-13
and 21) and tersär < *te-r är-sär (33). ärkän, which is used as a
temporal conjunction, may possibly be the result of syncopation from
*ärür kän, with a particle described in section 4.633 as being added to
temporal adverbs (and cf. the temporal suffix -mAzkAn).
The DLT distinguishes between kisi ‘wife’ and kiši ‘person’; this
distinction has by the EDPT and by Zieme in TDAYB 1987:306-7 been
taken to hold for Uygur as well. Since such a distinction is found
neither in runiform sources nor in any modern language and is at least
not explicit in Uygur,226 I take kisi to come from kiši+si: ‘wife’ is an
inalienable term, from the group with which the possessive suffix often
becomes part of the stem. Concerning Uygur, then, kiši could have
signified both ‘person’ and ‘wife’, or the meaning ‘wife’ could have
been borne by kisi. Verb / noun homophones ending in /š/ may all have
been caused by haplology, as no example of the formation in -Xš
derived from such verb stems appears to have survived: Qarakhanid tüš
‘place or time of a halt’ (hence sometimes ‘midday’) ought to come
from *tüš-üš, from the verb signifying ‘get down (from a horse)’, tuš in
the phrase tuš tulum bol- ‘to meet’ from tuš-, same meaning, over tuš-
uš,227 toš ‘water reservoir, pool’, partly documented in the EDPT, <
*toš-uš, from to-š- ‘to fill up’, sïš ‘a swelling’ from *sïš-ïš (both noun
and verb listed in the EDPT), koš ‘a pair’ from koš- ‘to conjoin’.
bagdaš ‘sitting with legs crossed’ is likelier to have come from * bagda-
š-ïš than from *bagda-š, as bagda- (found only in Qarakhanid) signifies
226 Cf. the n. to BuddhKat l. 4. In Uygur script /š/ is practically always spelled as s.
227 tušuš is, I think, attested in ïnta (U III 6,23 and DPAMPb 741, the same
passage in two mss.) ‘in front of (or opposite) the tent’ and in anï!"#$# $ ïnta ‘in front of
(or opposite) that (i.e. an orchard)’ in l.12 of the Udayana fragments of the same text
published by Wilkens in SIAL 18(2003): 155. I don’t think the instances should be
emended away to tušïnta as proposed in EDPT 129b and UW 91a; nor do I think it
possible to analyse the word as tuš+ï+sïn+ta with double use of the possessive suffix, as
proposed by the editors of DKPAMPb, although the word is spelled with Y in the
second syllable in that ms.: The other two mss. have W, and their proposal would entail
too much of an exception.
PHONOLOGY 125
‘to trip somebody’. 228 Haplology can always take place when
consonants and vowels in two adjacent syllables share most phonetic
features; orto+dun could actually also have been pronounced as ortodon
and olor-ur as oloror.
228 Additional possible examples for haplology in connection with this formation are
mentioned in OTWF 265.
126 CHAPTER TWO
first syllable, showing that the vowel was short) comes from nä käräk;
the strong stress on ‘Why?’ here even led to the dropping of /k/.
Further inscriptional fusions with pronoun vowels occur in bödkä (KT
S11, BQ N1 and 8 and E2) ‘at this time’ < bo üdkä, attested in K S 1
and K] < ] ‘these three’ in Tuñ 12: Note that the second
(front) vowel prevails in bödkä, the first, back one in \ . Backward
fronting, again involving bo (though without syllable loss), takes place
also in bökün ‘today’ < bo kün ‘this day’. It appears in bökün bar yaran
yok ‘here today and gone tomorrow’ (Mait Taf.118r12 = MaitH Y
12b27, colophon reedited by Laut in Ölmez & Raschmann 2002: 133)
and in bögünkätägi ‘till today’ in ManTüFr 7 and BT V 148 . This word
is spelled thus with G in Manichæan script in both mss.; this could be a
case of voice confusion in the BT V text, which has another two
instances for this phenomenon, but not in ManTüFr, which does not,
and on the other hand has kanyu as a sign of archaicity. Since Old
Turkic consonants do not get voiced between vowels, this should mean
that an original *gün (with g° in all Oguz languages) was here retained
because it was not in onset position: This fusion would have come
about before *g° > *k°.
kim+kä nä (pronoun and negative particle) is contracted to kimkä in
DreiPrinz 71 (and, damaged, in 86); there is a similar contraction in
Orkhon Turkic. The postposition täg fused with the demonstrative
pronouns bun+ and an+ by adapting to back harmony, giving montag
and antag. sizintäg (instead of sizni täg) ‘like you’ in ChrManMsFr
ManFr r 10 and bintägi ^ ¡p¢ £P¢¤1¥5¦K¢a¡p¢§¨¥5£ª©¬«¯®°f±²P¢³} ´b¢hµN¤¶¸·1¤5¡p¹,º
2000: 110-111 erroneously read as ‘büntägi’ and since T. Tekin 1963
interpreted as a case of backward assimilation) are additional instances
showing that täg was on the way to becoming a case suffix. The process
appears not to have been quite complete in Orkhon Turkic, however, as
we also find an instance of antäg (Tuñ 29), where the postposition still
retains its vowel.
In the verbal domain we get fusion between the vowel of the vowel
converb and the onset vowels of auxiliaries following them. This
happens in Orkhon Turkic with the verb ïd- (described in section
3.251), in xaganïn ﻽¼ ïnï idmiš ‘quite lost their ruler’ in Ongin F 2 and
¾¿KÀ¾Á?¾bÂìÁ ï) ïdmiš ‘sent the following message’ in Tuñ 34: Had there
been no factual fusion, the converbs would have had the shapes ïÀEÄ ïnu
and ayu.229 In Uygur the phenomenon is widespread with the verb u- ‘to
229 Tekin 1968: 101 (§2.259, 2°) read this as ‘ÅÆEÇÅ9È ïdmis’ and took it to be an
instance of external hiatus filled by a helping consonant; this was argued against in
PHONOLOGY 127
2.5. Morphophonology
Erdal 1979b: 224 (n.30). Hiatus-bridging /y/ is a phenomenon peculiar to the Oguz
branch and is unknown in Old Turkic.
230 The editor states the remaining letters of the second word to be unclear but nothing
else would probably suit the context.
128 CHAPTER TWO
Rarely, suffixes starting with a vowel retain this vowel in all posi-
tions, in which case bases ending in a vowel elide theirs: +(U)t, which
expresses plurality with titles, appears e.g. in tarkat, säÎ üt and tegit, the
plurals of the titles tarkan, säÎ ün and tegin; it may have been borrowed
together with these bases, possibly from a Mongolic language. Suffixes
which thus replace a part of their base are called dominant. Dominance
(first described for Turkic in Erdal 1979a) never applies to single-
syllable vowel bases, as it would change them beyond recognition. It is
also found with the suffixes -Xš and -Xn and one or two others.
A few of the suffixes starting with consonants drop these when added
to stems ending with consonants: The 3rd person possessive suffix
+(s)I(n) drops its /s/ when the stem has a consonant at its end, the
ordinal suffix +(r)Ar drops its /r/, the genitive suffix of the runiform
sources and a few Manichæan mss. +(n)XÎ its /n/. Morpheme juncture
is dealt with in greater detail in Erdal 1979a.
Synharmonism has been presented above in terms of phonemes
alternating in an archphoneme framework as far as vowels are
concerned but (seemingly inconsistently) as a matter of allophones in
the consonantal domain; this has to do with the fact that the distinctions
are, in practically all Turkic languages, salient for all vowels but only
for a few of the consonants. Strictly speaking, syllables are affected by
fronting and, in principle, even by rounding as wholes: Note that the
runiform script has quite different front and back characters for most
consonants (but not for all vowels); for the voiceless stops it even uses
special characters depending on whether vowels before or after them
are rounded or not. We have substantial evidence that Old Turkic /k/
was pronounced rather differently in front and in back surroundings.
We here give a classification of suffixes by archphoneme vowels.
Vowels in brackets are dropped if the phoneme stretch preceding the
suffix ends in a vowel (or in /r/ when the resulting cluster is admitted).
Suffixes containing the archphoneme /A/ are: +ÏÐÒÑ +dA, +kA, +gArU,
+rA/yA, +lAr, +dAm, +AgUt, +(A)gU, +kIñA, +(A)n; the postposition
yAn; +(A)d-, +(A)r-, +A-, +lA-, +(X)rKA-, +sIrA-; -(A)yIn, -(A)lIm, -Ar
(durative aspect suffix), -mAz, -mA, -(X)gmA, -mAk, -gA, -A (converb),
-gAlI, -mAtI(n), -gAn, -gAk, -mAn, -(X)pAn, -sAr, -gAysOk / -gAšOk;
-Ar-, -mA-.
Suffixes with /U/: +gArU, +dUrXk, +lXgU, +AgUt, +(A)gU; +U-;
-yU, -U (converb suffixes), - Ó ÔÖÕ\×KظÙÛÚ -Ur, -yUr (aorist suffixes), -gU
and -gUlXk, -zUn; -tUr-, -Ur- (and cf. enclitic mU). The second and
third syllable of altun ‘gold’ and küdägü ‘bridegroom’ could be said to
embody the archphoneme /U/ in that /U/ would be realised as /u/ in one
PHONOLOGY 129
case, as /ü/ in the other. The distinction between high and low rounded
vowels is directly documented in texts written in Indic scripts.
Suffixes with /o, ö/: +sOk; -(O)k; -gOk, -yOk, -dOk and -gAysOk /
-gAšOk; similarly the enclitic particle (O)k. Evidence for the vowel in
the different suffixes will be given in the next chapter, where we deal
with their morphology. All the suffixes mentioned end with /k/; since
the archphoneme /U/ is in no suffix followed by coda /k/,231 we get
complementary distribution: /U/ Ü Ý/Þ9ݸßPàá}âãbàäÝCåÝbæ]çèPàéPêà\ë\Ý/âì-ݸíNî(ïðòñ5é
these instances come from underlying /u ü/. If, on the other hand, the
syllable preceding this process contains the vowels /u/ or /ü/, the suffix
vowel can appear either with /o ö/ or with /u ü/; cf. üzüksüz (BuddhKat
31, Tibetan script) and buyruk óôdõPö-÷/ø,ùPú\ûúäü
ý þÿ
the second syllable. In examples mentioned in section 2.401, /o/ and /ö/
in non-first sylables of stems are likely to be replacements for /a ä/ or /u
ü/ when the preceding syllable has /o ö/; /X/ is also likely to have given
[o ö] when preceded by /o ö/. These are instances of strict vowel
attraction; what influence /k/ may have had on the vowels is not,
however, evident in any way. High rounded vowels before coda /k/
could be lowered in stems as well, if the Harezm-Turkic appearance of
sü for ‘bone’ (Ata 2002: 50) is any indication; in Old Turkic the
second sylable of this lexeme is always rounded, and this form would
signify that the Old Turkic lexeme is to be read as sü ök.
Suffixes with /X/: +Xz, +(X)g, +(X)n, +sXz,232 +lXg, +lXgU, +lXk,
+(X)m, +(X) , +(n)X , +dXn, +(X)t, +dUrXk; +(X)k-, +(X)rKA-; -gUlXk,
-Xš, - ! "$#&%')( - * +$,&-/.10324 - * +$,&-.$564 -(X)m, -gXn, -(X)z, -(X)7 , -(X)l, -sXk,
-(X)gmA, -(X)glI, -(X)p, -(X)pAn, -(X)yXn; -(X)t-, -(X)k-, -(X)z-, -(X)l-,
-sXk-.
Suffixes with /I/: +.)084 +sIg, +kI, +kIñA, +lI, +dI; +I-, +sIrA-; -(A)lIm,
-I (converb), -I (deverbal noun), -Ir (aorist suffix with -(X)t- etc.),
-(X)glI, gIl (imperative particle), -gAlI, - * +$,&-.1082 and -vI. The suffixes
+(s)I(n+), -mIš, -mAtI(n) and -(A)yIn are, in the Orkhon inscriptions,
usually spelled with s2 and n2; the instances are mentioned in T. Tekin
231 /u/ and /ü/ are, however, followed by /k/ without their vowels getting realised as /o
ö/ if they belong to the archphoneme /X/.
232 This suffix may originally have had /I/: A denominal verb formative derived from
it (documented in the OTWF) has the shape +sIrA-, the Tuñ inscription spells the suffix
once as s2z and once as s2zn2 (in the instrumental case) in two instances following
rounded back vowels, and the Yenisey inscription E26 twice writes b1w9 : 2Iz ‘without
shortage’. These are exceptions (IrqB 45 has explicit otsuz suvsuz ‘without grass or
water’, e.g.) but they are early. Bang 1925: 40 thought that the suffix could originally
have been an -(X)z derivate from sï- ‘to break’, which would fit with these facts; but the
transition from /I/ to /X/ would still have to be explained.
130 CHAPTER TWO
Tuñ 49 do not speak for Tekin’s view on +½X¾ either, as +(s)I(n), the suffix spelled with
s2, does so also when not preceded by +½[¾ .
237 Discussed in section 3.233 below.
238 Tekin 2000: 79 makes this phenomenon responsible for the /y/ in the suffix +yA.
That, however, should be an allomorph of the directive/locative case suffix+rA; cf.
132 CHAPTER TWO
ending in vowels are either simple or denominal. One could then write
this particular realisation of the suffix as -(A)r. For this same reason,
-yUr does not come from -Ur through the addition of /y/, but is an
allomorph by itself. + ¿ÁÀÃÂAÄ}ÅmÆ , an element expressing endearment, may
possibly be the only suffix which does drop an onset /I/; see section
3.111. It was probably borrowed from Iranian, however, and evidence
for it is quite tenuous.
-(O)k drops its onset vowel also in kör-k ‚beauty‘ < kör- ‚to see‘, ör-k
‘prominent’ < ör- ‚to rise‘ and tur-k ‚length, height‘ (discussed in
OTWF 224-225), since the cluster /rk/ is admitted. This clearly does not
happen to -(X)g, since we have sor-ug, sür-üg, tur-ug, ur-ug and yör-
üg. -(U)t behaves in the same way, with adïr-t and its synonym and
binome-mate üdür-t (both under adïrt in the UW), ägir-t ‚siege‘, ur-t
‚eye of a needle‘ < ur- ‚put, place‘ and also yurt ‚encampment‘ <
Khaladj yuor- ‚to sit or stay at some place‘. ör-t, ber-t and kïrt are
formed in a similar way. The causative suffix -(X)t- / -(I)t- equally
drops its vowel after /r/, in adart-, agtart-, bäkürt-, bälgürt-, bïšurt- and
so forth; the examples are quite numerous. The formative +(X)k-, on the
other hand, retains its vowel after /l/ and /r/, as can be seen, a.o., from
yol+uk- ‘to come across’ and the very common bir+ik- ‘to come
together’. The much less common -(X)k- fluctuates: Beside the many
examples of tar-ïk- ‘to disperse (intr.)’ we find in two pre -classical texts
(BT V 494 and Mait 165v28) the form tark-. The single Uygur
counterpart of Qarakhanid balïk- ‘to get wounded’ (related to baš
‘wound’ and balïg ‘wounded’) attested in Xw 74 is balk-. We cannot
say that these vowels were dropped because they belong to an affix;
they could also have disappeared due to the (more general) process of
the loss of the medial vowels: Note elit- ‚to lead‘ and its common
variant elt-. -(X)p does not loose its onset vowel even after /r/, although
/rp/ is an admitted coda cluster: Dropping the vowel would contradict
the tendency of having at least one syllable for each inflectional affix.
This may originally have been different, taking tolp ‚all‘ to be a
petrified -(X)p converb from tol- ‚to get full‘; but the syncopation could
also have developed secondarily, when the word was no longer felt to
be a converb. As far as inflectional morphology is concerned, stem-
final /r/ behaves like a consonant with respect to the dropping of vowels
in morpheme juncture; with stem-final /l/ and /n/ this is true also of
word formation.
section 3.124 below. ‘yu-y-ul-’ in l.1 of the text edited on p.300 of Laut & Ölmez 1998
should better be read as yuv-ul-, mentioned as a possible reading in the note thereto.
PHONOLOGY 133
239 Only the ms. TT VIII I differs here in writing /ï/ (as well as /e/) as E whereas the
letter E b cTdfehg[i@jlkmj n oqp r sutJtJvwyx[z1{}|[t~ w1{ w!qw
tw@qtlhwu5lw{=wym[
~ |55~^zW@[
borrowed words. In this it shows exactly the same practice as BuddhKat, which is in
Tibetan writing.
240 See the previous footnote. /e/ is not to be expected in this word, as the Skt. source
has /i/ and not /a/. See Erdal 2002: 20 for its first vowel.
134 CHAPTER TWO
times spelled with e in the third syllable in BuddhKat. For texts written
in Semitic scripts we can know of the harmony class of a suffix only
when it contains the letter X.241 Consistent back suffix harmony in
foreign elements can then be proven either when a stem shows explicit
front spelling or when it is otherwise attested in an Indian writing
system. A very clear such instance is fy ¡ (HeilkII 1,48), whose
first vowel is spelled as WY. The reading of asanke+lïg (Mait 90v9 and
192v3, Suv 163,17, TT X 2 etc.) and asanke+dakï (DKPAMPb 263,
403) would also be ¢£&¤¥¦§¢¨©ª¤&«¬:¦+®T©°¯¬5±&©R¨¯¥¦
¦!¨J©²³¬:´¦
µ¶¥=£¸·¹1º¯²
»1¼
Similarly with den+ka ‚to the religion‘ (TT II,1 46), whose base is
attested with front vowels in Tibetan script in BuddhKat 26, 29 and 30.
In other cases with back harmony in the suffix it is not sure that the
base has front vowels even if the word in the source language does.
Counter-examples to the rule are rare; such are šarir+kä ‘to the relic’
(MaitH Y 118) and frišti+lär+kä (M III Nr.1 I v3 and elsewhere); in the
case of frišti ‘angel’ back -harmony suffixation is attested as well (M II
10,4, TT IX 94 and elsewhere).
In a case like darni+g ‘the spell (acc.)’ (Suv 484,17) the second vo -
wel may actually have been transferred into the back class by the X of
the accusative suffix (with which it shares the syllable) and become /ï/.
The second vowel in ½¾¡1¿À ïr+lïg (< Skt. vajra; TT V A41, suffix
spelled with X) was introduced secondarily, and there is no reason to
think that it did not follow synharmonism. Similarly ¡ ïr < Skt. cakra
‘wheel’, bavagïr < ÁÂÃÄ ÅÆ ra (discussed in OTWF 16) or ǪÈÉÊ ïrmit in
TT X 513 (though spelled with K and not X) alternating with ˪ÌÍΪÏqÌÐTÑÒ
in l. 518, whose Sanskrit original did not have any vowel before the /r/
either. The third vowel of this word could also, of course, have been /ï/,
though we have no way of knowing. The fact that the last three words
are spelled with K and not X is irrelevant for the vowel; as pointed out
in section 2.34, velar stops in borrowings are not spelled with X even
when appearing in back-harmony syllables.
Hence the base of a form like šaki+lïg+lar Ó
ÔÕ Ö ×
ØÙÚÜÛÝhÞÞmßLàâáãä1å
æ5ç è1émê
) could also, influenced by its first vowel, have ended in /ï/ in
spite of the spelling with front K. Similarly ëªìí ïklïg (e.g. TT X 4) also
spelled with K, originally from Skt. îïðñò:ñ ; the raising of the second
vowel would indicate Sogdian origin. óªô ïk ‘letter’ is likely to have had
an /ï/ and not an /i/ as second vowel in spite of the spelling with K
241 The difference between the so-called ‘signal letters’ is not reflected in our
transcription; we write front or back vowels instead, though this cannot be seen in the
ms. if it does not use an Indic writing system.
PHONOLOGY 135
because a common variant is, in Semitic script, spelled with alef instead
of õ ö÷ in the second syllable.
It also happened, on the other hand, that borrowed stems were fronted
through the presence of K, possibly by spelling pronunciation. Such
cases are ø:ùªúªûü ‚nice‘ << Skt. ø:ýþqÿüÿ , sä räm ‚monastery‘ << Skt.
sam.
ÿ ‘monastery” and Gödäm << Gautama. g(ä)rx+kä ‘at (the
ascendance of) the planet’ (Sanskrit
ÿ ) has been read in a Berlin
fragment of Suv by Le Coq (the fragment itself is now lost); the onset K
apparently caused the fronting.
Bases with back synharmonism practically never get front suffixes:
Note runiform n1g1ws1k2l1r1 = nagošaklar ‘lay believers’ in ms. TM 332
(KöktüTurf p.1047): The word is spelled with a front k2 but the plural
suffix is +lar and not +lär.242 When the base ends with a caph (in Turk-
ic units used only beside front vowels), suffix velars adjacent to it can
also be spelled with caph e.g. in m(a)xistak+(k)a (with velar simplifica-
tion) or
(M I 33,18; ManBuchFr 1v6). This spelling practice
does not imply reading
+kä, as Zieme 1969: 57 did: The runiform
spelling of nagošaklar shows that the vowels were not fronted. There
are counter-examples to this spelling rule as well, e.g sa +ka (BT
XIII 13,81 in two mss.) and abišik+lïg with X in the suffix. There is
actually quite a lot of fluctuation after coda Ks of the stem; the Uygur
counterpart of Skt.
‘verse’ is often spelled with front suffixes but
we also have the accusative šlok+ug with X in Ht VIII 1924.
Counter-examples where foreign back-vowel words not ending in K
are followed by front-vowel suffixes are exceedingly rare. If they are
errors, as Röhrborn 1996: 178 (who mentions one of the examples)
thinks, they undermine !#"$%!'&)(*+!-,/. &0!#"2143$*5*6.798:&<;=">/?@$A21CB
$3D$E7).&F!#"$
rule Röhrborn was trying to establish in that paper. Two other such
instances are ugur+dä in Maue 1996: 3 Nrs. 90 and 96, a few lines from
the instance rajagr+dä which Röhrborn is there discussing (3 Nr. 86).243
242 Mz 386 (TM 333) v1-2 was read as š1’k 2l2r2:t1w[g1’]r 1:r2t2I by P.Zieme in ‘A
Manichæan -Turkic dispute in runic script’ (2001), interpreted as [nigo]šaklar tu[g]ar
ärti and translated as ‘[audi]tors were born’. This wo uld mean that nigošak here gets the
front variant of the plural suffix. The first character does not at all look like s1, however,
but rather like k1, and the verb phrase tugar ärti would imply durative aspect or a
continuous or iterative event, which seems unlikely; besides, babies are not born as
auditors. Another possible reading is ]ka k(ä)l(i)r tu[š]ar (ä)rti ‘They were coming to
meet (+ dative)’.
243 Maue transcribes rajagïrdä while Röhrborn would like to read rajagirdä, the
source being Skt. G H IJLKM N OQP . Since this is a secondary helping vowel, it might as well be
following the harmony of the vowels preceding it; the exception for the suffix would
not be all that much of a surprise in view of the double ugurdä in the same passage.
136 CHAPTER TWO
MORPHOLOGY
244 Exceptions to this are very rare. One example is the expression bir ikintiškä ‘one
another’; the second word of this common phrase clearly consists of ikinti, the ordinal
of iki ‘two’, of the dative suffix +kA and, between the two, of what at least looks like
the verbal cooperative-reciprocal suffix -(X)š-.
138 CHAPTER THREE
Old Turkic suffixes generally appear in neat chains and each of them
is expressed by a neat chain of phonemes (often alternating within
archphonemes); this is what is meant when stating that this is an
agglutinative language. Morpheme juncture procedures are described in
section 2.51 above; see also Erdal 1979a.
A morphological class of lexemes (generally corresponding to a part
of speech) opens a chain of morphological slots, which can be filled by
suffixes or left empty. A slot left empty may have a specific meaning
(‘zero’); this generally happens with verb stems, in that, e.g., the
absence of verbal suffixes indicates that the form is to be understood as
2nd person singular imperative. Or it may have no meaning at all, as e.g.
with the slot of possessive suffixes on nouns: The absence of possessive
suffixes does not mean that the entity belongs to nobody, or that it
belongs to the (unmarked) 3rd person. Here is an example for what I
mean, from verbal morphology,
where
possessive suffixes
can refer to
the subject of the verb: ïnmatï türk
bodun ölüräyin urugsïratayïn ter ärmiš (KT E10). This sentence can be
translated as follows: ‘They (i.e. the Chinese) used to say “Let us kill
and exterminate the Turk nation”, not taking into consideration that
(we)
gave
(them)
! so much service’. The context tells us that the subject
of - is the Turks; since these are the Turk ruler’s words,
‘we’ and not ‘they’ i s appropriate although not indicated by the
morphology of bertökgärü or anywhere else in the sentence. Nor is the
indirect object of ber- ‘to give’ explicit; we know it from the context,
which the addressee’s understanding is made to rely a lot upon by
Turkic economy.
The suffixes closer to the stem are, in general, derivational, while those
further away are flexional. This is so with verbs, where everything
preceding the slot for the negative suffix -mA- is derivational (though
not necessarily lexicalized). With other parts of speech, it can happen
that suffixes here considered to be derivational follow inflectional
suffixes, suffix juncture being in general weaker in non-verbal stems.245
In the rest of this section we will give examples for cases in which
245 Affixes dealt with under 3.28 below transpose verbal stems (including the affixes
preceding them) into a non-verbal class; from the morphological point of view, the
product then behaves as any nominal, as a morphological island, as it were. This is not
what is below referred to as a morphologically un-normal phenomenon.
MORPHOLOGY 139
3.02 Bracketing
248 Here are some additional ones: bir yintäm ‘exclusively’ (see OTWF 69) must come
from yin ‘member’, but the etymol ogy makes semantic sense only if one considers the
formative +dAm (dealt with in OTWF section 2.31) to have here been added to the
phrase bir yin ‘one member’. bir ya ïg ‘uniform’ similarly comes from adding the
formative +lXg to the phrase bir ya ‘one type’, bir išdäš ‘having a common cause’
(especially common in the Kšanti Kïlguluk nom, edited in separate parts by Röhrborn
and Warnke) from adding the formative +dAš to bir iš ‘one karma’. +sIg (OTWF
section 2.32) is also added to bracketed nominal phrases in (ö J +sig ak- ‘flowing as
if at different places (of a river)’ (HTsPek as quoted in UW 78) and (tümän mï ¢¡£ +sig
‘as
¤+¥{¦¨§ªif© «in¬thousands
§ª¯®°¯±¯²´³µ¶}of·)myriads
¸&¹ º»f¹ of shapes’ (QB 829). In akar suvluk ‘an area, a place with
+lXk is added to a participle + head. The second phrase of
¼9½¨¾¯¿&ÀÂÁÄÃÆÅÇÉÈÊ ÁÄÃ
ï tärs tätrü törö (TT VI 331) ‘diviners ÁÄÃ and other followers of wrong
teachings’ is to be analysed as (tärs tätrü törö)+ ; +ËrÌ would not make sense when
added to törö ‘teaching’ by itself. Similarly nomlarnïÍ Î{Ï ïn kertü töz)+süz+in … bilirlär
(Suv 386,7) ‘They know that the dharmas are without any real root’. The phrase bir
ägsüksüz is used in contracts (e.g. UjgRuk 19, FenTen II 5) as a synonym of tükäl
‘complete(ly)’: It has +sXz added to the predicate of the clause bir ägsük ‘one is
missing’, giving ‘not one missing’.
MORPHOLOGY 141
urï.249 In bii250 bïÐ&ÑÓÒÔ ïlïÐ ïn bïÐ ïšurlar (Mait 171v2 = MaitH XX 1r21)
‘They cut each other with awls, knives and swords’ the shared element
is the instrumental suffix. With the locative case suffix we can quote ol
yäkniÕÖØ×ÙfÖÚÙ-ÛÕØÜÝÞßÙ ïn yalÕÒÔÙfÞgÔÝ+àÛܨ×ÛÜRÔÖÐØÝáÚâÙ ïdtaÐ ï yok (TT X 104-
106) ‘There is nobody either among the gods above or among the
human beings below who restrains the power of that demon’. As in the
previous example, the elements üstün täÕÜÝ ‘gods above’ and altïn
yalÕÒÔ ‘men below’ are not bracketed; they d o, however, constitute a
natural antithetical pair and not merely coordinated elements of a
sentence.
ãä{åä æ_çáççèÆäáThis
éäáãêãØis ëìí-not the
îïäÉðñ é}òcase
ógôæ_in
ôïôtheõö-÷instances
ø}÷ï ïinùéØthe
ðñ÷é following passage:
ùöfö-îìäÓí ùïùéïlar
ãôíÓüûôöfó ïn burxanlar anta
tugmaz; köú ar, kirläri täriú ïš tüzünlär bo tïltagïn
anta barmaz (HTs V 100-106) ‘Because they humiliate people and
disparage teaching, that is why Buddhas are not born there;ìýèdbecause ÷þ
their mind are narrow and their filth deep, for that reason ü who
have
ùïùé found blessing do not go there’: Both pairs have the postposition
in common but in the first pair the plural suffix is also shared. In
ÿ ÿ
ÿ Æ ÿ ÿ !"#$%
&
ï]n tözünlärinlugun
(DreiPrinz 119) ‘the two blessed kings together with all their princes,
wives and retinue’ the case suffix is shared but the oblique or
accusative form of the possessive suffix is not; this and the fact that it
does not, for some reason, adhere to synharmonism make it similar in
behaviour to a postposition.251 The accusative form of the possessive
ÿ -/.
suffix is shared by a binome in bäksiz mä'(*)+(
, (MaitH XV
5r27) ‘he understands (their) transience and ...’. The plural suffix can be
shared also by finite verbs, as in alku ayïg ögürdi sävintilär (Saddh 39)
‘They all rejoiced greatly’; ögir- sävin- is a biverb. It would have been
unthinkable for the verbs to share a verbal suffix such as -dI.
There is a sharp distinction between verbs on the one hand and the other
parts of speech on the other: While unbound elements are often found
249 One ms. among four writes urïlar here, but leaves urï in line 140, where a similar
expression appears.
250 Spelled thus? The editors of this chapter of the Hami ms. write biri, which gives no
meaning. No facs. of the page where this word appears reached Europe; the text of this
passage is based solely on the transcription of Prof. Geng, who may have made a
mistake. biiz ‘awl’, another possible interpretation of what Geng may have seen, is less
likely because bi bï021*3 is a common binome.
251 The possibility that tegitlärin and 4/5767895;:< =;>7? ï]n are not accusative but instrumental
forms seems less likely to me.
142 CHAPTER THREE
to belong to two, often even three among the other parts of speech
(noun, adjective, adverb, postposition, conjunction etc.) and borders
between noun and adjective, adjective and adverb, adverb and
postposition, pronoun and conjunction etc. are rather fuzzy, verb stems
very rarely serve as anything else. This is the position, among others, of
Grönbech 1936: 18-19, who points out that there may be coincidence
between verbs and nominals in some cases, derivation through
homophonous suffixes (e.g. -(X)š- and -Xš, -(X)n- and -(X)n) in others,
but that verbs and all other lexeme classes are in principle clearly
distinct. One might add that convergence may also have had some
influence, verbal and nominal stems which happen to be similar in
meaning and shape having drawn even closer as they got associated
with each other by speakers. Doerfer 1982 gives a long list of entities
he considers to be ‘Nomenverba’; one obvious Old Turkic example is
karï ‘old’ and karï- ‘to get old’. There are a number of such clear
instances, though a part of Doerfer’s list must certainly be rejected as
the actual meanings are in fact not all too close. In any case, the
phenomenon is of etymological though not of grammatical relevance
(unlike English or Chinese).
Morphology has here been divided into four groups: the nominals
(also comprising adjectives, pronouns and numerals), verbs (comprising
verb forms transposed into other classes, i.e. participles, converbs etc.),
adjuncts (comprising adverbs, postpositions, conjunctions and particles)
and interjections.
3.1. Nominals
Nominals are lexemes which can serve as heads of noun phrases and
are thus capable of reference. As a morphological feature, all nominals
can receive case suffixes. The term covers nouns (including proper
names), adjectives, pronouns and numerals. We speak of ‘adjectives’ as
a special sub-class because there is an (admittedly fuzzy) semantic
distinction between the two classes: Adjectives tend to denote qualities
and are used for referring less frequently than nouns. They also have a
lot in common with adverbs. Furthermore, the stem of gradable
adjectives can be reduplicated or they can get expanded by +rAk,252
none of which is possible with nouns. There also are formatives such as
+sIg specifically forming adjective-type lexemes, and +lXg more often
253 +lXk is used for forming abstracts in Qarakhanid only, Uygur examples being rare
and late; in OTWF 126 this is explained by the fact that Uygur was a contact language
with Chinese, which Qarakhanid wasn’t. Here, nevertheless, is one instance from a
letter, a text type notorious for introducing progressive forms: k7l/m&k7npoqk7rtsuo vxwyv&z9quo n
äsänlik ayïdu ïdur biz ‘We inquire about the well-being of those at home’; see OTWF
126 for a few additional examples. The matter is discussed in Röhrborn 1995.
254 E.g. Üdrät ‘Increase (tr.)!’, Asïl ‘Multiply (intr.)!’, Üklit ‘Make numerous!’,
Kantur ‘Make glad!’ or Tusul ‘Be beneficial!’.
MORPHOLOGY 145
because its products are not distinct lexemes); this double nature of
being a formative preceding all inflection on the one hand, of being like
a particle both formally and semantically on the other hand, is retained
in some modern languages where it lives on, like Uzbek and Bashkir.
+sIg forms adjectives signifying ‘similar to (or trying to be like) the
base nominal’, as in öæ i+sig and adïn+sïg ‘distinct’, bar+sïg ‘as if
existing’, ulug+sïg ‘vain’. The formative +dAm (as in täæ ri+däm
‘divine’) appears to have a similar meaning.
+AgUt forms status designations, as the very common bayagut
‘merchant, notable’ and alpagut ‘warrior’. The form also appears in
binomes with underlying nominals, as bay bayagut, baš bašagut ‘fore-
most (pupil)’ (Mait 160v2) or uz uzagut ‘specialist’ (ManMon 30).
Colour names have special derivates, formed with suffixes such as
+gXl, +sIl and +Xš; see OTWF section 2.6. +(l)dUrXk forms names of
implements spatially connected with human or animal body parts, such
as boyunduruk ‘yoke’, beldürük ‘belt’, sakalduruk ‘cap strap under the
chin’. +(l)dUrXk appears to have had a variant +(l)dArXk now attested
255 It also seems to be the only originally Turkic one: All the suffixes mentioned
hitherto apparently come from Indo-European (though this is not the place to go into
details on etymology).
MORPHOLOGY 147
257 common yarlïkan W ï ‘compassionate’ and its rare near -synonyms
WSo
Wdo WHthe
andvery ¡J
sakïn ï (see OTWF 114-5), which can be considered to be deverbal
as no corresponding - ¢ £3¤¦¥§¨ forms are attested. Thus also ©Wª¬«©®{¯ ï ‘deceitful person’
(already KT E6), which comes from ar-mak ‘deceit’ and not from the verb.
258 I have met only one instance where the referent is an animal: kan+¯ ï kurt ‘a leech’
in a Br ° ±² ³ ´^µ·¶J´¸J¹^ºt»J¼ kan ‘blood’.
MORPHOLOGY 149
259 From avïn- ‘to divert oneself’; see section 3.284 for the -gU formation.
260 DLT fol. 165 says that the Oguz could use /m/ or (in one case) /s/ instead of /p/.
152 CHAPTER THREE
261 The formation in -gAk does not quite fit into any of these; cf. OTWF §3.327.
262 This and -Xn are dominant formations; see section 2.51 above.
MORPHOLOGY 153
The formation in -(X)m is in the DLT and in a few late Uygur texts used
for denoting measurement units of substances; see the end of section
3.14.
-(X)g, which is the most common formative for deverbal nouns (see
OTWF § 3.101), was involved in suffix derivations and suffix
compounding which sometimes led into inflection: The DLT (fol. 582)
deals with -(X)glXk as a ‘participle of necessity’. The converb suffix
-ã&äåæç (see section 3.286) probably comes from -(X)g+(s)I(n)+æç , i.e.
with the possessive suffix in the equative case. The ergative suffix
-(X)glXg and agentive - è éênã.æ'ä (see below) as well as the desiderative
suffix -(X)gsA- (section 3.212) also contain this element. All this means
that -(X)g must have been just as common, or even commoner and more
productive, in prehistorical times.
Nominals derived with - è éªênã.æ'äfë -ã²ì³æ'ä , -(X)mlXg, -gA, -gAn, a few
minor formatives and -mAksXz always refer to or qualify the subject of
the verb they are derived from.263 This is clearly a secondary group:
- è éênã.æ'äfë -ãì°æ'ä , -(X)mlXg and -mAksXz are composite; -gA and -gAn
appear to have been taken over from inflectional morphology (and
probably not the other way around): -gA may have been related to
-gAy264 while -gAn is the Common Turkic participle suffix. Deverbal
nominals may originally all have been of the ergative type. In the
negative domain there is a three-way division of tasks between
composite forms: -mAksXz denotes only subjects, -gUlXksXz all other
participants but never the subject and - è éêåæ4íuéî the subject if the verb
is intransitive but the object if it is transitive.
The - è éênã.æ'ä form sometimes has verbal government; here are two
instances with the dative: ï ægðñ7ò&å.óõôðWö÷ø ïgæ ï tïnlïglar az; yäkkä iæ'ãðôôð
kamka tapïgæ ï tïnlïglar üküš täù ñnó m (TT VI 017-018) ‘Creatures
worshipping the three jewels are few; creatures worshipping demons,
vampires and magicians are numerous, my lord’; burxanlarïg nom
tilgänin ävirtgükä, altï p(a)ramïtlarïg tošgurtguka ötügú6ûýüþ&ÿ
&ú ïtguk
.ú6û!ü&þ&ÿ (Suv 181,16-22) ‘if he
þ
û
becomes one who prays for the buddhas to turn the wheel of dharma
and to fulfill the six !#"$dû%
&" , … who prays for (staying on earth for
innumerable ages and) explaining and dissipating the esssence of the
law …’.
263In the Suv the form -')(+*-, is used also for qualifying objects; see section 3.282.
264The relationship between -gA and -gAy is discussed in section 3.234 below. The
deverbal suffix -gAysOk / -gAsOk (OTWF section 2.93) must also have been formed
from such nominal -gAy / -gA through the denominal suffix +sOk (dealt with in that
same section of OTWF).
154 CHAPTER THREE
265 OTWF 116 quotes passages in which fg<hNiGjlkm ‘guarding, guardian’ governs direct
objects such as n_oqpIrtsluvw ‘the world’ or ordo kapag ‘palace and gate’. In darnï arvïš
ryxryz{ v ïlarïg kög |}A~NNN l|[}ll
0| (Warnke 166) ‘because they guard and defend people
who uphold spells’ an -(X)g+|\ derivate of kö- and an -(U)t+|- derivate of küzäd- have
the government of an accusative form in common.
266 Such phrases can, of course, also be understood as complex nominal phrases if the
first element is in the stem form and not in the accusative; in section 4.121 below we
discuss also nominal phrases whose head has no possessive suffix although the internal
relationship is neither appositional nor adjectival, as in balïk kapag ‘city gate’ or beš
N
ïnlïglar ‘the beings of the five existences’. Instances as the se may, however, be
set phrases, the heads of the type discussed in the present section do seem to be
transparently deverbal and in a few cases the object is in the accusative case.
267 Denominal +\ forms do not, of course, govern objects.
MORPHOLOGY 155
often transparent (e.g. bilgä ‘wise person’) but none show any signs of
participle-like behaviour either.
Another adjective formed from a deverbal nominal (the ‘dominant’
-Xš) with the help of +lXg is küsüšlüg ‘desirous (of)’ from küsä- ‘to
wish’ over küsüš ‘wish’. OTWF 273 quotes examples of küsüšlüg
governing the objects nom ‘dharma’, munta kutrulmak ‘to save oneself
from this’, burxan kutï ‘buddhahood’ and [b]o kutlug kün+üg ‘this
blessed day (accusative)’. In bir kü9+& ï_&PN Y
küsüšlüg kulï alp kara (HamTouen 5,64) ‘his slave Alp Kara, who
wishes to see him ten million times a day’ küsüšlüg governs a converb
form in -gAlI and in fact functions as an attributive participle of küsä-.
Since this lexeme shows some verbal characteristics, one would want to
derive it directly from küsä- through a composite deverbal formative;
other instances of -Xš with +lXg do not, however, show any degree of
fusion. Above we quoted an -(X)mlXg form governing a converb in
-gAlI. Derivates in -(X)n can also govern such converbs, as sakïn <
sakïn- ‘to think’ in ¡_¢
£¤¥P£_£¦¢
¦_¢$0P+ ï sakïn ïn yïrlap
taxšurup bitig bititsär, ... (U III 75,10) ‘Whichever man sings and
writes verses and has letters written with the intention of currying
favour with women, ...’. P£+_£¦¢
&$¦_§¢
0P
ï sakïn is the
nominalisation of the phrase P£_£0¢
&¦P
¢
0P
ï sakïn- ‘to plan to
curry favour’. With P¨GyW < kertgün- ‘to believe’ we have
$¦©$ª«P¬9¨Gy
P$$ _®£¯#°A (MaitH Y 4) ‘the lay brother with faith
in the three jewels’. All this shows the fuzziness of the border between
lexeme formation and grammar.
-gAn is a participle and action noun suffix in most of the modern
Turkic languages and is likely to have been a part of the inflectional
system already in Proto-Turkic. In Old Turkic this use is either archaic,
however, or else we find it in late texts, where it may have been
reintroduced from other dialects; such use is mentioned in section 3.282
below. Petrified -gAn forms are tikän, yargan or bazgan, all discussed
in OTWF section 3.324. Some instances of -gAn do belong into word
formation, however, as they are clearly neither participles nor petrified
lexemes. Such instances (dealt with in detail in OTWF section 3.324)
are esnägän bars (IrqB X) ‘a yawning tiger (not one yawning during
the event recounted in the passage)’, udïgan (Mait III 3r6) ‘(a snake)
prone to sleep’, tutgan and kapgan (HamTouen 17,4-9 and 1´-6´) ‘(a)
rapacious (falcon)’, savï yarlïgï yorïgan (Schwitz 17) ‘(somebody)
whose words and commands generally prevail’, kišini tutagan268 (TT
268 See OTWF 425 for the first vowel of this verb, mentioned in the EDPT as ‘tota-’.
156 CHAPTER THREE
This is of three types. There is, first, the inflection of nouns and
adjectives, the latter also getting used adverbially. Pronominal and
numeral morphology, which differ from this first type, are discussed in
sections 3.13 and 3.14 below. The inflectional morphology of nouns
and adjectives consists of the markers of four categories, number,
possession, antonym marker and case.270 Further, of a converter +kI
(applied to local and temporal terms of miscellaneous shape; section
3.126) and, for Uygur, of +lXg (section 3.111 and 4.122) which, like the
genitive suffix, has some converter qualities. As a further (non-
inflectional) nominal category we should mention (in)definiteness,
since an Old Turkic nominal can be accompanied by the indefinite
article bir (distinct from the numeral ‘one’ by meaning), mentioned in
section 4.1.
Rather then modifying nominals, the categorial markers discussed
here in fact modify noun phrases: In közi kara+m ‘my black eyed one’
(M II 9,19), for instance, the possessive suffix is added to two words
together, without these having become one lexicalised whole. There is,
269 yügürgäntä bultumuz in HamTouen 20,11 should be translated as the editor does:
yügürgän ‘courier’ is documented in the DLT. This is a lexeme and not a -gAn form
created ad hoc, which it was taken to be in OTWF 384.
270 +(X)m appears to have become a feminine marker in some words; see the end of
section 3.122. The gender of terms formed with the Sogdian feminine suffix +an¿ , e.g.
arxantan¿ (examples in the UW entry) ‘female arhat (saint in Indian tradition)’,
n(ï)gošak n(ï)gošakan ¿NÀlÁÂÄÃ<Á (M III Nr.27 r6) ‘to male and female auditors’, ÅÆ[ÇqÈtÉ ÊÄËÌ Í
‘female presbyter’, ÇIËÊÄÎÏÉ Ê-Ë Ì Í ‘female novice’ or ÇIËÎÐÌ ËÌ Í ‘nun’ was clearly transp arent
to Uygur readers. The existence of a category of human gender could have been
considered even though the suffix is attested only with borrowings, if there had been
more examples or if they had shown greater semantic diversity.
MORPHOLOGY 157
271 ‘yer+i+lär+dä’ with the possessive suffix preceding the plural suffix instead of
following it has been read in ‘üzütüm(ü)n siz kurtganïàâáyãäåæqç è#é_ê<æIçyëlå0æÄì å ozguruà í (M
III Nr.9 II,I v5-7), translated as “meine Seele aus den finstern Ländern der greisen
Todesdämonin errette Du!; this is also quoted in Zieme 1969: 114. The third word
should, however, probably be read as kurtgarïî ; in the writing style which Le Coq here
qualifies as “nachlässige uigurische Pinselschrift”, N and R are often similar. P. Zieme
(personal communication) now reads the word discussed here as yagïlarda and not
‘yerilärdä’. This gives two sentences with parallel verbs: ‘Redeem you my soul and
save (me) from murky enemies’.
158 CHAPTER THREE
3.121. Number
This is a binary category, with ‘plural’ as marked member: Plural
entities are commonly marked with +lAr but the absence of this element
does not signify that the reference is to a singular entity.
In the runiform inscriptions, nominal plurality was expressed only
with humans, and that only occasionally; the following sentence, e.g.,
clearly refers to all the sons and daughters of the nation: bäglik urï
ogluïñðPò$óÐô$õ$óö ï, esilik kïz ogluïKð9÷ï®ô$õóö ï (KT E 34) ‘Your sons, meant
to be lords, became slaves, your daughters, meant to be ladies, became
concubines’. As pointed out in Tekin 2000: 102, the inscriptions apply
+lAr to the social class of bäg+lär ‘the lords’ and to names for family
members. According to Johanson 2001: 1728a “ist im Ost -
Alttürkischen -lAr noch ein Kollektivsuffix”; this can hardly be the case
when Köl Tegin (N9) refers to his own sisters and wives as äkä+lär+im
and ðPòø+ù_ò¦ú +lar+ïm respectively. In the Yenisey inscriptions we also
find kälin+lär+im ‘my daughters-in-law’, küdägü+lär+im ‘my sons-in-
law’ or kadaš+lar+ïï ïz ‘your relatives’.
In the Orkhon and Imperial Uygur inscriptions, the Common Turkic
+lAr competes with the suffixes +(U)t, +An and +s. +(U)t (which may
have been borrowed together with the bases it is used with) appears e.g.
in tarkat, säï üt and tegit, the plurals of the titles tarkan, säï ün and
tegin. See OTWF 78-79 for documentation and subsequent retention.272
In (post-inscriptional) Uygur, the ‘normal’ plural suffix +lAr was added
unto these forms, giving the common tegitlär ‘princes’ or (in MaitH
XVI 11r25) bägitlär ‘the lords’. otuz tegit oglanï ... birlä (MaitH,
colophon,24) ‘together with his 30 prince(ly) sons’ still has the simple
form. +s appears only in a term borrowed from Sanskrit, išvara+s (ŠU
S 2), ‘potentates’. +s looks Indo-European while both Mongolic and
Sogdian have plural suffixes with °t.273 +An, the third rare plural suffix,
is discussed in OTWF 91-92. It appears mainly in är+än ‘men’, tor+an
‘system of nets’, öz+än ‘the innermost parts’ and og(u)l+an ‘sons’, e.g.
in IrqB LXV: amtï, amrak og(u)lanïm, anùûüô+ý&óYý ï lär ‘now, my dear
sons, know you thus’; the plural verb form shows that more than one
272 The suffix was mentioned as +(X)t in the OTWF but none of the instances attested
with common nouns gives unequivocal proof for the identity of the vowel. The Taþ ÿ
people (this name first mentioned twice in the Orkhon inscriptions) were in Tang China
called Dang Xiang. I would propose that +Ut was added to this first syllable. If this was
done by Turks, the vowel would be fixed as /U/. If the language was Mongolic (the
plural suffix +Ud being fully productive there), Mongolic /U/ would correspond to
Turkic /X/.
273 It is, I think, most likely for the suffix to have been of Mongolic origin, as only that
language group had °n / °t as a regular representative of singular vs. plural in nominals.
MORPHOLOGY 159
person was being addressed. Note also ogulanïm inilärim ‘my sons and
younger brothers (M III 9,5) with parallelism between the two suffixes.
The appearance of +lAr was in general not a matter of economy but of
individuality, the height on the agentivity scale of the entity involved
and, no less important, relevance: Take the passage az ïnaru barm[ïš],
bir ögü[r] muygak kör[miš], ymä muygak sïgunug uvu[tsuz bi]lig ü
edärür ärmiš. bo bälgü körüp ymä ... (M I 35,7) ‘He went a bit further
and saw a herd274 of female maral deer. A female maral deer was
pursuing a male maral deer for sex. He saw this sign and ...’. The
reference could also be to a number of females pursuing the males; we
don’t know, as the author does not appear to have attached any
importance to specifying the number. In the simile kaltï balak (= balïk)
(M I 17,14) balïk ‘fish’ could be either singular or
plural; the translation could either be ‘as a fish swims in water’ or ‘as
fish swim in water’: The difference just does not matter in this
particular context. Uygur and Qarakhanid sources have the common
Turkic marker +lAr appearing with any entities and not just with
humans, e.g. üdlär ‘periods of time’, tä ri mä iläri ‘divine pleasures’,
yultuzlar ‘stars’. Even there, however, the presence of +lAr is indicative
of a plurality of individual entities rather than a mass (unless an Uygur
translator is translating a foreign source literally).
Forms without +lAr could sometimes be understood as plural when no
number words were around even in the wider context: 495 bodisavtlar
kuvragï ‘the assembly of the 495 bodhisattvas’ but adïn tä ri kuvragï
(in the context) ‘the assembly of the other gods’.
The honorific use of plural forms is normally limited to the
pronominal and the verbal domain. Rarely, anominal plural form can
!#"%$ &#'$ )(
also*serve
,+
this purpose: The question
kö ïlt[ï] mu which Upatis- .0/21435/6387#9:<;=.?>A@#B1DCE/GFIH<3&JK!LGM*NPOAQ
29-30 quoted by Zieme in UAJb 16: 295) signifies ‘Oh noble one! Did
your heart stray seeing this pageant?’. Similary in KP 45,3, where
bodis(a)vtlar is used in clear honorific reference to a single person
(alternating with bodis(a)vt two lines further on); here the person is not
addressed but spoken about.
RTSVUXWYZ[\ ] ^_^`a^P_#b`a^_0c=`a^dfe `a^d^`g^,c6hji klV^,c=_nmporqi&so
t=uv#wuyx{z{|}~
‘ladies’ referring to a single woman, as completely clear
from the context. The note to the passage mentions Mongolic exe+ner
denoting a (single) woman, refers to a paper by Doerfer on the category
of number in Manchu and writes that it is “wahrscheinlich als ein
274 The editor writes bir ökü[š] (i.e. üküš) but ögür seems more likely to me. If there is
enough space in the lacuna, the text may have had bir ögü[r sïgun] muygak.
160 CHAPTER THREE
3.122. Possession
Here are the ‘possessive’ suffixes, which come second in the morpheme
chain:
singular plural
1st person +(X)m +(X)mXz
2nd person +(X) ~ +(X)g +(X) Xz ~ +(X)gXz, +(X) XzlAr
3rd person +(s)I(n+) +(s)I(n+), +lArI(n+)
275 The Arabic plural ¡ ‘family members’, which in many Turkic langu ages came
to signify ‘wife’, may or may not be another example for the same phenomenon: Many
Arabic plurals of other semantic domains, e.g. ¢¤£D¥¤¥y¦§ ‘merchants’, also acquired singular
meanings in Turkish.
276 These two forms cannot be connected with Mongolian gü’ün (Written Mongolian
kümün), as T.Tekin (1968: 121) thinks, as that is not a suffix but a noun and signifies
‘person, people’; +(A)gU is by no means limited to humans or even to living beings.
277 iniy is the archaic form of ini ‘younger brother’ w hich still appears as ¨ª© « in Yakut.
It was thought by some that iniyägün is a compound of ini with ‘nephew’; this latter,
however, is yegän and not ‘yägün’. A passage in E28,8, a Yenisey grave inscription, has
been read as tört (i)n(i)l(i)gü (ä)rt(i)m(i)z; b(i)zni (ä)rkl(i)g (a)d(ï)rtï, by T. Tekin 1991:
357 translated as ‘We were four brothers; the god of the Underworld separated us’. This
does not suit the meaning of the comitative suffix +lXgU: That would have had to be
translated as ‘we were with four brothers’, which does not suit the context. I take l2 in
the first word to be a scribe’s error for y 2: iniy+ägü would fit this context (and Tekin’s
translation) perfectly. The stone does show l2 but the two letters are quite similar; he
could have misread his handwritten source.
MORPHOLOGY 161
bän. Labials in the 1st person are a universal feature, however, and do
not signal any etymological connection. An etymological connection
between the 2nd person possessive suffixes and the 2nd person personal
pronouns – postulated by some scholars – is also quite unlikely: The
former have a nasal or oral lenis velar whereas the latter ends in an
alveolar nasal in the singular and has no nasal at all in the plural; nor is
the onset /s/ of sän likely to have melted away in any accountable
variety of Proto-Turkic. In short, pronouns and suffixes can not be
connected.
In the 2nd person the nasal and the voiced velar fluctuate in the
Orkhon inscriptions, without apparent reason and even in the same
phrase; e.g. el+i¬ +in törö+g+ün (KT IE22) ‘your land and your
government (acc.)’. Other examples for /g/ are bu¬ +ug (KT S8) ‘your
worry’, ädgü+g (KT E24, BQ E20) ‘your profit’. The /g/ appears also in
verbal forms, where it refers to the subject: bilmä-dök+üg+®¯°®
(BQ E20) ‘because of your ignorance’ (accusative form governed by
the postposition), öl-sük+üg (KT S7, BQ N5) vs. öl-sük+ü¬ (KT S6, BQ
N5). With the preterite the oral velar is attested both in the singular and
in the plural: The forms alkïntïg, arïltïg, bardïg, ärtig, kïltïg, kigürtüg,
körtüg, öltüg and bardïgïz are all quoted in Tekin 1968:92-93. This
fluctuation is found in some modern languages as well, e.g. among the
Anatolian dialects.
In some Manichæan mss., e.g. one ms. of Xw, we find that the 1st
person plural possessive suffix has the form +(U)mXz / +(U)mUz e.g.
tak+umuz (251) instead of takïmïz and, with the preterite form which
has the same suffixes, sï-dumuz (256) and ±²*°²#³´² -dumuz (258).
We have a rare repetition of the possessive suffix in the common
bir+i+si ‘one of them’; this may possibly have come about through
analogy from iki+si ‘both of them’, in case iki / äki was felt to come (or
really was) from *äk+i ‘its supplement’.
In the 3rd person singular and plural, the suffixes in the table are
written with an n+ at their end; this n+ appears in brackets because it is
absent in the nominative (where the 1st and 2nd person possessive
suffixes serve as they are). Cf. the demonstrative pronouns, which show
the same element; the personal pronouns have a related phenomenon
especially in the plural domain, and cf. Orkhon Turkic +(A)gU(n). In
earlier texts, the n+ of the 3rd person possessive suffixes in fact appears
before all suffixes: also the antonymy and parallelism marker +lI (see
section 3.123) and the suffix +lXg (e.g. in burxan kutïn+lïg ‘related to
162 CHAPTER THREE
278 The 3rd person possessive suffix may possibly originally have been identical with
the obsolete pronoun ïn+ discussed in section 3.132 below.
279 This is what appears from examples quoted in Benzing 1940: 253, 255 and in other
publications.
280 This was first proposed by Radloff, later by Räsänen; see Tekin 1968: 18 for
references.
281 Orkhon Turkic orto+sï½ aru is also spelled four times with r1 and w, but Hesche
2001 makes a case for the view that these are instances of kün orto ‘south’ and tün orto
‘north’ governed by a postposition sï½ aru. There are no other relevant case suffixes:
The dative has no oral velar but ½ , for which there is only one sign in the Orkhon
inscriptions. The ligature with which the locative is always spelled and the ¾ of the
equative are also used both in front and back contexts.
282 Bang, Gabain (e.g. 1974 § 71) and others took this to be an old dual suffix, stating
MORPHOLOGY 163
that words as köz ‘eye’, köküz ‘breast’, tiz ‘knee’ or müyüz (*buñuz) ‘horn’, representing
body parts of which men or animals have a pair, are formed with it. agïz ‘mouth’ was
assigned to this group because there are two jaws. +(X)z was taken to appear also in biz
‘we’ and siz ‘you (pl.)’, in ikiz ‘twin’ and in the 1 st and 2nd person plural possessive
suffixes. However, a number of body parts which come in pairs, such as älig ‘hand’,
kulkak ‘ear’, ägin ‘shoulder’ or adak ‘foot’, do not end in /z/; mäÌ&Í Î ‘complexion’ ends
in /z/ but is not a pair and does not consist of two parts. köz is probably derived from
kör- ‘to see’. In (Qarakhanid etc.) ikiz ‘twin’ duality is denoted by the base and not the
suffix. It seems unlikely that Proto-Turkic should have had a dual, as there is none in
any Turkic language or in Mongolian. Róna-Tas 1998: 73 writes: “Contrary to the
opinion of Erdal and others -z has never been a dual suffix or denoted pairs of body
parts”; I never expressed a view different from the one formulated above.
164 CHAPTER THREE
äÏ ulugï and äÏ ’ilki ulugï respectively, are quoted in Gabain 1974: 158
(§ 360) and 398 (suppl. 56). The 3rd person possessive suffix creates
contrast within a group, e.g. ulugï täÏ ri tep tedi and ÐÑÒÑ Ó¼ÑPÔÕ Ï ri tep tedi
‘The greater one among the gods said the following’ and ‘The smaller
one among the gods said the following’ in the AranÖØ× ÙÛÚ -Ü&Ý&ÞEß à#ß
(ManOuïg 1 a r1 and 8). Cf. further sïá ar+ï bodun iâ=ãDäå,ãªæç ïá ar+ï bodun
kirti ‘Half / Part of the people submitted, the other half / part retreated’
(ŠU E6-7), with the possessive suffix referring to the ‘whole’. The
expression anta kalmïš+ï bodun ‘that part of the people which stayed
behind’ is from the same inscription (N3); note that the contrastive
possessive suffix is here added to a participle representing the head as
subject.
The possesive suffix also has referential tasks within text structure:
Take the sentence Amga korugun kïšlap yazïá a oguzgaru sü tašïkdïmïz
(KT N 8), which signifies ‘We spent the winter at the Goat reserve and,
that summer, drew out with our army against the Oguz’. The possessive
suffix in *yaz+ïn+ga refers back to the winter preceding the summer of
the Oguz raid. The use of the possessive suffix in keniáè ‘in the end’
(Pfahl I 8) referring the the preceding narrative is similar. In yol+ï,
which forms adverbial multiplicatives (section 3.14), finally, such
reference has become rather fuzzy.
Old Turkic (like e.g. Modern Turkish) shows switch reference, where
a preceding and a following element refer to each other by possessive
suffixes; e.g. titsi+si baxšï+sïáé (TT X 18) ‘the pupil (spoke) to his
teacher’, ata+sï ogl+ï tapa kälmiš täg (TT X 71) ‘as when a father
comes to his son’: English uses possessive marking only for the entities
mentioned second, thus refering only backwards and not forwards.
täá rim, literally ‘my god’, is a deferent ial way of address, like my
lord, French ma-dame, Arabic sayyid+i (> ç êë0ì ) etc.
The 3rd person singular possessive suffix is often used for the plural as
well, e.g. inscriptional íî!ï6íðñòóïìõôì 283 kälti, sav+ï bir ‘There came
three enemy deserters all submitting the same report’; süsin anta
ö÷ø
îë ïm, ävi on kün öù rä ürküp barmïš ‘There I routed their (the
Karluk’s) army; their households had, it turned out, gotten alarmed and
fled ten days earlier’. This was no doubt the Proto -Turkic situation, still
found e.g. in Chuvash. In Uygur we find e.g. kaù ï xan ögi katun ...
283 This word is based on an emendation by Radlov accepted by most scholars. The
stone has something which apparently looks most like y2Iy2I, by Aalto in his edition
translated as “nacheinander”. This idea, take úÛû&ü<ýþ2ÿ þ
!#"%$&(')' *+
,
)-).' /
01325460 7
890 * :;09' <=
)?>@A1!#1 B"' <CED6' >@ yigi ‘close, compact, dense’, but
/g/ is never dropped in (early) Old Turkic. We are left with Radlov’s proposal, then.
MORPHOLOGY 165
ogl+ïF GIHKJMLNJIGOQPSRG(TVUSUWU ‘in whatever way his father the king and his
mother the queen asked their son ...’; XZY\[X;]_^5`M^M[3^MabXdcMef[Aghdc([jilk\eMXZm\n
tizin söküp … ayasïn kavšurup … ‘the four o_pMqKp(r3s t\u gods knelt on
their right knees and joined their palms (aya+sïn)’: The praying gesture
obviously involves the palms of a person’s both hands. Also in an
instance with +lAr like yigi kïlïnvNw u(x ïn in Pothi 20, which should be
translated as ‘their close-set deeds (acc.)’, there is no need to think that
+lAr actually denotes the plurality of subjects (which must be clear
from the context) beside denoting the plurality of actions. The 3rd
person plural possessive suffix +lArI does not ever appear to get added
to the plural suffix +lAr; the instance in BT II 744 (yarlïkanvNy(v ï
közM{MwZwZ{5|~}{(vNwd x wd x
‘their faculties of commiseration’) is isolated and
should be an error. What we do have is the addition of +lAr after the 2nd
person plural possessive suffix, presumably to make clear that a
plurality of possessors (and not mere polite address or a plurality of
possessed entities) is meant; +(X)z (X)zlAr is a composite plural
possessive marker: üsküzM{55wZ x (Pothi 366) ‘in your (pl.) presence’,
5
z # 5\wd x N}N\ Nd| B zMKwdSx (3(Pothi
ävi _MN(382) ‘reach
5(#V MM5\ (pl.) your (pl.) homes!’;
(M III Nr.27 r 14) ‘May a
life in joy and happiness materialize for you!’; sizlärni
ogl+an+ï ïz+lar+nï (DKPAMPb 172) ‘your (pl., polite) children
(accusative)’. The Suv, a Buddhist text, has quite a number of instances
of
(_this 5 suffix Z\(N sequence, among them birök el xan ¡d \bäg
W¢KKiši bodun
N5
Q((Nkara
5d(
orïsarlar,
5Z(£(¤A3
ötrö sizlärni
yalïnï ïzlar terini ï ïzlar asïlur üstälür (Suv 194,16) ‘If,
however, king, lord and lady and the simple folk were to live by
manners and tradition, MM#\then
M55d(your
d((pl.)
dN
£¥divine
( glory and community
would thrive’ and kö ïn ï ïzlarNdtursar ( (Suv 2,14)
‘if such thoughts come up in your (pl.) hearts’. kïlïn ï ïz ‘your (pl.)
deeds’ in Suv 660,1, on the \
S other hand, refers to the
deeds of a single
person addressed to as tä ‘my lord’, a s kollarï ïz ‘your (pl.) arms’
in Suv 349,3 refers \
S to the two arms of somebody addressed as kopda
kötrülmiš t(ä) ‘my elated lord’. Similarly the sentence 5( alku
tetse[lïg] terin kuvraglarï ïznï yana nomlug yagmurïn bar ï tošgurur
tükätür siz ‘You fulfill and perfect all, all your (pl.) communities of
pupils,
\
S by the rain of dharma’ (Suv 334,10) is addressed to a single
tä , who had ‘all’ communities listening to him.
There is no evident way for a plurality of speakers to refer each to his
own ‘possessed’ entity; we have the problem in Uygur colophons of
manuscripts, where the religious merit of having sponsored the copying
is by the sponsors deflected to their relatives. When such copying is
166 CHAPTER THREE
... körüp ‘perceiving lie and truth’ and öó li köó ülli+g ‘appearance and
essence’ are direct objects. Cf. further täó rili yerli+dä ‘in the sky and
on earth’ and the near -synonyms ô5õNôMöd÷_ø(ùföúû(üN÷_ø(ùöúSýúWó ... taplagï (BT I
D 250) ‘the acceptance of ending and extinction’.
3rd person possessive suffixes preceding +lI normally have the
‘pronominal’ n+; e.g. bašïnlï adakïnlï iki yïlta (Ht VII 16 b 5-6) ‘within
two years, from beginning to end’ with cataphori c +(s)I(n+), tïltagïnlï
nom tözinli ikigüni ‘both their cause and their dharma root’ 284 þ-ÿ
B r 6), tüšinli tïltagïnlï (BT I D 279) ‘their effect and their cause’, isig
özinli ... (DKPAMPb 380) ‘his life and ...’. The instances in the
following sentence lack pronominal +n: šakimuni burxannï
!
"
# $%
"
&& $% ' )(&+*#$
, - '
/.
ïlarïlï, grtïrakut tagda ulatï adïn ö ï ïlï, adïn
ö ïkada ï nomlug ätözlärkä ymä ä
01 $'2 3 4
amrïlmïšlarka … yükünür m(ä)n (Suv 32,19-21) ‘I bow to the
and to those who have found peace in the eight great
caityas (+lI 5768:9<;="=>?A@BDC#EF?DG;"HJIK
in the other ten corners and
directions (+lI) of the earth of which the foremost is mount Gr LM=>N+?DC OP LM?K
or elsewhere’. 285 mäni QSRUTWV%XY[ZMV[RT\
+üm+li ‘the dream I dreamt and ...’
(MaitH XIII 5r14) is an instance with a 1st person possessive suffix.
In ädgüli ayïglï kïlïn ï ]\^_a` QbRUTWV
\&X_cZdR&Xe"eTf"X
(BT II 925-928) ‘when
the retribution for good and bad deeds arrive’ the suffix gets added to a
pair of adjectives in adnominal use.
In some instances one member of a couple lacks +lI, e.g. tä rilärli Q
kinarïlar üzä sävitilmiš ‘loved by gods and kin ’ (ATBVP 37). gih gajk%jl
Double +lI lives on in Middle Turkic, e.g. in the Qis - mon#p qsrutUv w xyJzs{F|
(Ata 2002: 68) and in modern languages.
3.124. Case
When case morphemes followed directly upon possessive morphemes,
there was some fusion. There are three case paradigms, then: One for
bare nominal stems and nominal stems ending with the plural suffix or
+lI, a second, fused one for stems with a possessive suffix and a third
284 Accusative suffix +nI ‘pronominal’ (as i n bizni) in view of the shape +(A)gU(n)+
which this suffix has in Orkhon Turkic or the late Uygur extension of +nI at the expense
of +(X)g (or both).
285 There is here a tripartite classification of places; however, the third member of the
}
~
series (adïn ö lär) does not get the element +lI, perhaps because it is merely a residual
and non-specific category, though it does get the locative suffix intended for all three. In
Taryat E3, a runiform inscription of the Uygur kaganate, one could, in principle, read
ötükän+li tägrä+si+li äkin ara ‘between Ö. and its surroundings’, but ötükän eli
tägräsi eli äkin ara could be spelled in the same way and would give a very similar
meaning. T. Tekin reads Tägräs eli, taking ‘tägräs’ to be a place name.
168 CHAPTER THREE
The genitive suffix has two main variants: +(n)X , with /n/ dropped
after consonants, is used in the runiform inscriptions (e.g. +u in KT
E32, bäg+i in E33) and a few other early texts, notably runiform mss.
(e.g. Blatt 2, 3 and 26 and the IrqB) and Manichæan sources (kišilär(i)
in M III Nr. 8 VII r7 (22,71).286 There seem to be no genitives in the
inscriptions of the Uygur steppe empire. An /n/ appearing in this way
only with stems ending in vowels is not attested with any other Old
Turkic suffix: This suffix may possibly prehistorically have been
transferred from the pronominal declension, where there is the so-called
pronominal /n/, by metanalysis.287
286 Numerous instances read as +n(a)ng, +n(ä)ng by Le Coq in Manichæan texts, e.g.
in M I 14 title, 16,11-12 and 17,20 can be read as +A instead, and vice versa. The latter
reading would imply a lowering of the suffix vowel, which in fact does not happen very
often in front harmony words even in Manichæan texts.
287 Róna-Tas 1998: 73 thinks “Proto -Turkic nouns probably had an oblique stem in -n,
just as pronouns still have in Old Turkic”. As evidence for this he gives, beside the
genitive suffix, an accusative suffix which he reconstructs as *-nVG, a dative suffix
*-nKA and an instrumental suffix *-nVn. There is, however, no way to reduce the
nominal and the pronominal accusative suffixes to any common source by any sound
laws known to have held for that stage of the language, and there is no evidence
whatsoever that the dative and the instrumental suffixes ever started with an /n/. So the
genitive suffix remains by itself, and ‘oblique -n’ remains a purely pronominal feature
MORPHOLOGY 169
The vast majority of Uygur texts, however, show the suffix only with
/n/ also after consonants, e.g. maytri bodïsavt+nï . Exceptions, such as
äv+i
"
4
ï ïnmak ‘to sin with a married woman’, the title of the
third chapter of the DKPAM, need an explanation: In this case I take
ävi
"
ï, literally ‘a woman of the house’, to be a lexicalised phrase
created before the generalization of +nX .
Qarakhanid has a dissimilative variant +nXg,288 Orkhon Turkic a
different dissimilative variant +Xn appearing after / /. We find +nU in
two Manichæan hymn titles, ïnu
‘the hymn of the god
Vam’ and 4& d%
š(a)n zaw(a)r #Mc ¡¢£¤¥
&¤
‘the hymn to god, light,
power, wisdom’ (M II 9 and 10). 289 Conversely, +nI appears, e.g., in ¢
¢
bayagutnï in HTs III 507. Sometimes the vowel is implicit, or is
spelled as a low vowel, e.g. bägnä in U IV A152, kišinä in M I 8,15. ¢ ¢
The vast majority of instances do, however, have /X/.
In the pronominal domain, the genitive form can be expanded by
¢ ¦§
other case suffixes, e.g. öz+in+i + ‘like his own’ (M III 22, 14 1); it
¢
gets the plural suffix in män+i +lär ol ‘they are mine’ (U III 27,16) and
¢
has the derivate män+i +siz (in the common Buddhist phrase mänsiz
mäni ¢W¨c ©
‘selfless’, put into the accusative in Suv 210,21).
¢ ¦§
bizi +tä+ki+ ‘as in the one belonging to us’ is attested in Suv. Cf.
possessive adjectives like Danish min, pl. mine ‘mine’, sin, pl. sine ‘his
own’.
In Buddhist Uygur, genitives of nouns can get their head deleted and
be put into the locative case form; this is either used with comparative
meaning or governed by postpositions. In what follows, these
¢
postpositions are ulatï, ö and artok respectively; in the second
instance the possessive suffix inherited from the original head is
retained. kulgaknï ¢&¤ª¡"«&¤"
ï adïn biliglär ‘the other senses, (i.e.) the
sense (bilig) of hearing (lit. ‘the one of the ear’) etc.’ (Abhi A 3704,
referring to the senses other than the sense of sight); ädgü ayïg
nomlarnï ïn ¢ ¦ ¡¬©# §®W¯° ±£¤²
ïšlarnï ïnda ö (BuddhUig II ¢ ¢" § ² § ©
447) ‘The ¤"&³¤"´ ¦ ¡
(= Chin. ïn for this Sanskrit term) nature of good
(found, however, also with the collective suffix +(A)gU in Orkhon Turkic, and also the
possessive suffixes) as far as Turkic is concerned (though the situation is different in
Mongolic).
288 Tekin 1968: 127 mentions a single instance for a variant +Xg of this suffix from
KT E25, the form bodun+ug; while this variant may be the result of dissimilation after
/n/, the context makes it more likely for it to be a regular accusative in the accusative +
finite verb construction (discussed in section 4.622 below).
289 This is the shape of the genitive suffix also in Early Anatolian Turkish. Cf. the
rounding in flexional suffixes presumably caused by labial consonants in some
Manichæan mss. and mss. in Sogdian script (section 2.402).
170 CHAPTER THREE
and bad principles is not different from the one of the sugatas (ädgün,
adverbial instrumental, bar-mïš+lar ‘the ones who walked’) ’. In the
first case one instance of bilig (which could have served as head of
µ
kulgak+nï ) is deleted; in the second one barmïšlar+nï +ïn+da is µ
equivalent to barmïšlarnï ïn µ·¶ ¸¹»º¼½#¾À¿Á"Â
. Similarly burxanlarnï µ
tïnlïglarïg ... ömäki ögnü ï µº&ÃÅĵ¿ µº&ÂƺÂÄ
ï artok ü (Warnke 195) ¶Ç¿
‘because the Buddhas are considerate ... of the creatures even more than
mothers and fathers’, where the phrase tïnlïglarïg ... ömäki is deleted.
Another such instance from Warnke 211 is quoted in UW 211b. Cf.
µ
further kalavink+ni +dä (Suv 646,6) from the name of a bird, with ün
‘voice’ to be understood from out of the context. In yarumïš ol
ö µÈÃľ ÉÃÈa¿F¾MµÁ"ÃWÊËÃÈ%º&Ì;/ÎÐÏÉÑÂÌÒº
ïkïlarnï µÁ"Â
(HTs VII 199-201) the word
understood from the context is swö bašlag ‘preface’: ‘It turns out that it
overshadows those of the previous ones (i.e. the previous authors) and
surpasses those of the present ones’. Instances such as
µ ¶Â
baxšï+nï +ta+kï+ (Abhi A 3537) are comparable to Turkish adding
+kI to the genitive suffix in the sequence +nIn+ki(n+) to integrate the
genitive form as noun phrase without its head. Old Turkic does not,
however, add +kI: In this is similar to the phenomenon which has, in
connection with Romani and Hurrian, been called ‘Suffixaufnahme’,
although the genitive in those languages gets the head’s suffixes also
when attributive (which would be impossible in any Turkic language).
The accusative has the suffix +(X)g; as stated in Erdal 1979, this is
replaced by the pronominal accusative suffix +nI in the latest Uygur
Ó Â¿º¹ÈaÁ"¶
sources. This happens mostly when stems end in a vowel, e.g.
ï+nï in U II 58,3, ayalar+nï in U II 46,70, yerni mä karï
kišini290 in Brieffr C12, again kiši+ni in TT VII 25,6; occasionally, this
suffix appears in early texts as well, e.g. savl(ï)g ätözni arta(t)dïmïz in
Mait 177r7.291 In loans +nI appears more often and turns up at an earlier
stage of the language than in native Turkic words; e.g. darni+ni ‘the
ØÙÚÛÙ
incantation formula’ (< Skt. Á"Ô"ÕÈ¿ Ö+×
) in U II 38,69. Nouns such as
and tüzü ‘all’, whose use is not far from that of pronouns, have
the +nI ending also in classical Uygur (e.g. in HTs VIII 21, Pothi 68).
290 This particular instance may possibly have been contracted from *yeri ÜaÝcÞßáà<âã%ä
ï
kiši ÜÝDÞåMæÝ
ïtmïš bolgay sän) ‘you will have forgotten your home and your old wife’ (or
‚relatives’). But, on the other hand, this text uses a very late language, with VdV > VyV
and özgä ‘other (than)’; the use of the particle mA after nouns (and not just after
pronouns) is also particularly late.
291 The content of this sentence is not very clear; cf. UW 209b in section 5) of the
entry for artat-.
MORPHOLOGY 171
The dative suffix for substantives is +kA in all varieties and stages of
Old Turkic. Irregularities occur when it follows the 1st and 2nd person
singular possessive suffixes, which show pronominal behaviour; these
are dealt with below. +kA is today found only in Khaladj. According to
DLT fol. 537-8, the Argu used this same form; çÍè#é êëDì íîëcïïðëDìiñòóWô)ôõó
have been aware of any other Turkic group of his time using it beside
them. Evidence for +gA, which can be assumed to have existed in early
Turkic beside +kA because of Oguz and Bolgar-Chuvash +A, is
exceedingly weak in Old Turkic. öë#ñ÷ðøùóòùçÍè#é êëDì í÷úûñüñýôõë
ôõðcþÐðDòôÿëDòøùóò
what he takes to be evidence from Old Turkic texts in runiform script,
Doerfer 1987 set up the theory that the Old Turkic dative was
pronounced as +gA, and that it did not use the characters for /g/ because
those were pronounced as fricatives and not stops. For that purpose he
refers to both the simple dative forms and the ones appearing after
possessive suffixes as we find them in the Yenisey inscriptions. We will
separate the two sets of forms, to deal with the possessive forms further
on. Runiform evidence is such that we practically always find +kä /
+qa. This evidence is overriding also for the Yenisey inscriptions, with
two exceptions: +gA appears in E11 D1, in the sentence beš yegirmi
yašïmda tavga
ïm ‘When I was fourteen years old I went to
the Chinese king’, and in E45 5 in the sentence kök tä
azdïm ‘(When I was sixty years old) I lost the sun in the sky’. 292 The
other runiform text in which we find a +gA dative is ms. IV in the Stein
collection published by Thomsen, a short administrative (or perhaps
military) letter. The dating of this text in irregular cursive characters
(perhaps the only runiform ms. not written with a pen) reads
säkiz yegirmigä ‘in the 5th month, on the 18th’. The Manichæan script
292 The fact that both bases end in /n/ may or may not be a coincidence. Doerfer
thought there were +gA datives also in E40 (the Tašeba inscription) and E22. In E40,
Radloff and Vasil’ev were apparently wrong in reading elgä: Kormušin 1997: 128 reads
the word as el(i)m. Kurt Wulff, in his unpublished edition of the Yenisey inscriptions,
writes about the space after l2: “svage spor, der snarest kan tyde på g 2, muligvis m” (he
actually supplies drawings of all these characters), i.e. ‘weak traces, which most likely
indicate g2, possibly m’. He adds: “Mellem dette og t 1, hvor Radloff, Atlas har A, synes
der ikke at have stået noget bogstav”, i.e. ‘Between this and t1, where Radloff, Atlas has
A, there appears not to have stood any letter’. Vasil’ev does not actually give any
photograph of this inscription, and the letter which does not exist according to Wulff
and Kormušin is in his hand-drawing drawn like a miniature I and not an A. In E22,
where Vasil’ev writes (ä)lgä, the text actually reads "!$#&%(')#+* '-,/.#&01'324#
ï)m da (thus, with
an erroneous : before the locative suffix), i.e. ‘when I was 42 years old’ .
172 CHAPTER THREE
distinguished between /k/ and /g/ when appearing both in front and in
back syllables. Again the overriding majority of examples shows caph
or coph, but the texts occasionally write G / 5 : We find üdgä in M III
Nr.12 v 3, e.g., and ätkä kanga ‘concerning meat and blood’ in Wilkens
2000 Nr.65 r 1. In bastan (thus) adaka tägi kanka iri6798:<; 7=?> @
‘besmirched in blood and pus from head to foot’ (M I 5,14) we find the
two velars simplified in adak+ka and the suffix velar assimilated to the
nasal of iri6 in what is spelled as A BDCEB/FDFGH IJLKMNMPOJQJLJSRLTVU4WYXZ\[Q]_^(Xa`YU4`
are 63 instances of k as against 3 spelled with g (which is well within
^(Xa`cb(d+Zcd^fehgiDKagUjZlkbm`UjU4gUni-goKapqdrKtsu?voUVTwU4WYXZ\[NZxeeI ]IyMmXa`RjgU3dzvd+Kakb
version of) the Arabic script as used for writing Qarakhanid does not
distinguish between /k/ and /g/ in front syllables, but back syllable
words consistently use {|1} and not ghain for spelling the dative both in
the DLT and the QB. Ghain was, of course, a fricative, while {|Q} may
have
~4Yy
been
z
pronounced
f\YaY+as\a voiced
Y 1hLand
+lNnot
aan
h Yunvoiced
¡< Y¢£a Y¤y
¥uvular
¦yz¥Y¤y§stop
t¥in
not contradict Doerfer’s theory that the dative suffix was pronounced
with a voiced and not an unvoiced uvular or velar stop; but he may
possibly be right even as far as Old Turkic is concerned: The so-called
voiced characters may not generally have been used as they in fact
indicated voiced fricatives and not stops. Just possibly (but by no means
necessarily), a stop [g] (as against a fricative) could also be meant when
using K. Doerfer’s theory would also explain the Proto -Oguz, Bolgar-
Chuvash and general Middle Turkic293 emergence of +gA as the dative
¨4©aªjª-«+¬®Y¯a°±³²ªV´²©µ3¨3¶± ·\¸¹ ºYµ »3¼1¨h¨-½QY½Q¶Y¾l¶Y¯½¿²¯ÁÀµ4©tõ<²¯©¯a´«z½L«z²¯³Ä ÅEÆa¶
voiced stop, which the phonemes /k/ and /g/ could be sharing in that it
might have existed as variant in the word (or syllable) onset for the
latter and in all other positions for the former, might have served as
pivot, getting at first (at the Old Turkic stage) generalised from the
post-vocalic position to all positions, and then receiving (after
Qarakhanid as far as Eastern Turkic is concerned) the fricative variant
beside it. But there is very little in the Old Turkic documentation to
speak for this view. Another possibility is that +kA was primary and
that the emergence of +gA is due to the influence of the directive suffix
(which always had /g/ and was not related to the dative).
Old Turkic has no +A or +yA dative, as maintained again and again by
Gabain 1974: 87 and others, especially T.Tekin 1996a, who intend
these to be linked with one of the Mongolic suffixes serving as
The locative suffix +dA serves also in ablative use in the earlier part of
our corpus; see the ablative below. The distribution of the two sets of
alveolar characters in the Orkhon inscriptions is documented in T.Tekin
1968: 133: It turns out that d1 and d2 are here more general than with
the constative preterite: t1 and t2 are here the rule only when the stem
ends in /l n/, with /r/ generally followed by the D runes like the other
consonants. We also find köl+tä ‘at the lake’ with t 2 in ŠU S6. The rule
holds also for pronominal forms spelled as bunta, anta and bizintä.
r2(I)g2y2r2t2A (KT S13 twice) is an exception if correctly understood as
ärig yertä;296 a number of other instances of yer get /d/ in the locative
suffix. k2íî 2d2ïñð+òôóõyö
ðw÷VøùÙúlûüýaþPûYòaøÿyþYùþþÿLð
øò $øùhÿ
yð?özû
þ
name may have had a vowel after the /n/. Twice ölümtä oz- in IrqB 49
and ayakïmta idišimtä in IrqB 42 are also against this rule.297 In
Manichæan sources (as documented in Zieme 1969: 112 -114) we find
the spelling with T in
"!#$&%$& '($# *)
+&,
kö- .#/,01 230,4#/,0,5607 and often after the possessive suffix +(s)In+ and in
pronouns, i.e. again after /l n/. Here the exceptions are yerindä in M III
8 I v1 on the one hand and yertä (as in Orkhon Turkic) in TT II,2 10. In
294 The datives adaka and suvsamaka mentioned by Gabain show the very common
simplification of velars, and the +yA forms mentioned there appear to belong to the
directive-locative case as described below. The first word in inscriptional bï8:9 bašï
refers to some military unit which may (or may not) be related to bï8 ‘thousand’, but
Old Turkic does not, in any case, use adnominal datives. 9<;=9 in TT IIA 37 is the
converb form, as correctly noted in UW 37b.
295 This is Johanson’s name for what we have called Old Turkic (which is, of course,
documented best form the eastern part of the Turkic world).
296 Here, in T.Tekin 2000: 77, 115 and in glossaries of all the reeditions of the Orkhon
inscriptions by T.Tekin, he mentions an instance of yertä also in BQ N15; no such word
occurs in this line in any of the editions I have looked at, and I have not come across it
anywhere else in that inscription. It may, however, appear in Tuñ 47 according to some
readings.
297 Erdal 1997a: 69 mentions IrqB irregularities also for the constative preterite.
174 CHAPTER THREE
the Pothi book, which is a late text, the rule is not observed; nor is there
>?@ACB DE3FG?IHJA KL#M N OQP&R#SUT
VOW
In Qarakhanid mss. we generally find voice
assimilation, i.e. +tA after voiceless consonants and +dA otherwise; but
cf. ïš+da in DLT fol. 402.
The ablative suffix appears as +dIn in most Uygur sources, where +dA
serves as locative only, as well as in Qarakhanid. The variant +dAn,
today found everywhere except modern Uygur, is attested in
preclassical and/or Manichæan te xts, e.g. as ögüzdän or sütdän. In these
sources, the alveolar is generally spelled as D except after /n/. There are
examples also twice in BT V 172 and in 501 (täX Y[ZG\]Y:^]_ ), DreiPrinz
96 (]iglärdän), M I 5,13 (baštan, an exception in the spelling of the
alveolar), 7,2 (ïga` ^a_ ), 17,19 (töpödän) 22,41 and 72 (täb YZc^]_ and
yerdän) and M III 28,85 (yerindän) and 42,17 (täb Y[ZG\]Y:^]_ ). The DLT
ms. has both +dIn and +dAn, e.g. suv arïktïn kardï (fol. 525) ‘The water
overflowed from the canal’ vs. kul täb YZc^]_ (with ^ degf not hi#jk ) korktï
(fol. 627) ‘The worshipper feared God’; both the I and the A of the
suffixes are by the first hand.298 The vowel of +dAn may have been
taken over from the locative suffix +dA by analogy, or, conversely, the
most common variant +dIn may have come about secondarily, through
influence by the orientational suffix which has a similar shape when not
rounded. These appear to be morphological variants, but in Manichæan
texts +dAn could also be part of the (phonological, phonetical or merely
graphic) lowering of vowels also found in this group of sources. Zieme
1969: 177-8 brought together the evidence for ablative meaning in
Manichæan texts. It turns out that most of them do not have any
ablative suffix and use the +dA suffix for ablative content. Some have
+dAn as quoted above, but +dIn is rare in Manichæan sources: The only
ones which have it (and no +dAn) are the Pothi book and the passage M
I 29-30 (which is a very late reader’s addition to a text). In the runiform
inscriptions, e.g. in kand(a)n ‘from where’ in KT E23, the vowel of the
suffix is never explicit.299 However, in Oguzdundan (Tuñ 8) ‘from the
direction of the Oguz’, where it is added to t he orientational suffix
+dXn, both suffixes are spelled without explicit vowel: This means that
the inscriptional ablative suffix has to be read with A, because its vowel
298 In their grammatical sketch, Dankoff & Kelly 1985: 323 tacitly change this last
instance to täl mon p[n q . In fol. 574 the ms. (first hand) has buzdun ‘from the ice’ with
ablative meaning, by the editors again changed to ‘buzdïn’.
299 In this and in all the runiform examples of the ablative to be mentioned here, it
follows an /n/ and is spelled with the ligature, so that its alveolar must be [d], to be
assigned to the /d/ phoneme.
MORPHOLOGY 175
300 What has by the editors been read as taštï[r]tïn kälip ‘coming from outside’ in
MaitH Y 164 could as well have been taštï[n]tïn kälip; the suffix +dIrtIn has till now
appeared only in pronouns.
301 The instance in anta ötrö oguz kopïn kälti (Tuñ I S9) could possibly be translated
as ‘thereupon the Oguz came in their entirety’, with the possessive suffix +(s)I(n+)
before the instrumental ending.
176 CHAPTER THREE
III Nr.15 r 17) ‘by the heart’, közin kulkakïn tïlïn älgin adakïn (Xw 207
both ms.) ‘by the eyes, the ears, the tongue, the hand, the foot’, äsrökün
(M I 6,16) ‘by drunkenness’, körkün (M III Nr.7 III v 12, BT V Nr.25 v
11-12, ms. U 128a in BT V n. 574 = ZiemeSermon v 5) ‘by shape’ 302 or
<&*&
(TT II,1 66) ‘with joy’. Here and in many additional
examples, Manichæan texts generally have +(X)n unless there is
parallelism with stems in unrounded vowels (as in Xw 207 just quoted);
Zieme 1969: 177 has brought together the (limited) Manichæan
evidence for +In: Only the Pothi book, the Yosipas fragment and one of
~=c¡ J¢&£
¤¦¥ ¢#§¨©¤«ª~¬®¯¦°
-9) have +(I)n (and no +(X)n).303 In the DLT
we find fourfold-harmony instrumentals such as köz+ün ‘with the eye’
and kö±#² +ün ‘with the heart’. Buddhist texts (where the instrumental is
also exceedingly common), on the other hand, consistently have +(I)n:,
otïn suvïn (MaitH XX 13r10) ‘with fire and water’ or ötüglügin (HTs
VIII 68) ‘by having requests’. baltun ‘with an axe (baltu or balto)’
(MaitH XVNachtr 3r26) is an example of the suffix’es being added to a
stem ending in a vowel.304
alkugun and kamagun ‘altogether’ are instrumental forms put to
adverbial use.305 The instrumental suffix was also added to the
postpositions bi(r)lä and ö±³ : Originally it probably applied to the
postpositional phrase as a whole, putting it to adverbial use; in late
Uygur, however, bi(r)län becomes a variant of bi(r)lä. birökin
‘however’ (MaitH XV 3v4) shows the particle birök with the
instrumental suffix. It appears, further, to have been added to the
comitative case suffix +lXgU / +lUgU and to the converb ending -mAtI.
The etymology of the converb endings -(X)pAnXn and -(X)pAn may
possibly be linked to a demonstrative instrumental as may the
imperative form -zUnIn (as explained in sections 3.231 and 3.286). The
sequences +sXzXn and -(X)n´µ·¶¹¸o¶»º are also common: The instrumental
302 The noun in körgün (thus, with G, in Manichæan script) tägšürüp of U 128a v5 is
not an error for accusative körk+in (facs. clear): körkün tägšil- in BT V 574 shows that
the instrumental is appropriate.
303 ulug ünin üntädi ma ¼Q½·¾<¿ ï (M III Nr.3 v 12) could possibly be understood as ‘He
shouted and bellowed with his loud voice’ with the possesive suffix before the
instrumental.
304 The statement in Johanson 1988: 142 that “It is a well -known fact that the Old
Turkic instrumental in {(X)n} already ceases to be productive in Uighur” is certainly
misguided; cf. also section 4.1110 below.
305 Not instances of a suffix +kün, +gün etc., as proposed in Gabain 1974 § 50. The
other forms mentioned in that paragraph belong to the collective suffix +(A)gU which is
used in runiform inscriptions with the pronominal n; but pronominal n appears only
before case suffixes (and is not attested with this suffix outside those inscriptions).
MORPHOLOGY 177
suffix is often added to the privative suffix +sXz (and to - À Á( ÃÄÅ·Á¹Æ ) as
well as to its opposite +lXg when they are put to adverbial use. The
suffix -(X)pAn clearly related to -(X)p and front low forms in early texts
as ärklig+än and siziks(i)z+än in TT VI 90 and 305 respectively make it
possible that there was an early variant of the shape +An as well.
306 There is no diminutive or intensive suffix of this shape in Old Turkic, as professed
in Gabain 1941: 59; the only two examples in her § 45 which do have this meaning
among the ones mentioned do so by virtue of the base or some other suffix. The
Ottoman diminutive suffix +Þß was borrowed from Modern Persian.
178 CHAPTER THREE
and the pronominal dative in +gAr; note that Tuvan has (or had in the
last century) such directives as puruà áQâ r ‘forwards; to the east’, soã áQâä
‘back; to the west’ and küã[å(æä ‘towards the sun’. Deictic directives
such as çcèéêëì*íïîð&ñ=é(ðë<ò*íïó&ôêëì and artgaru (‘in, out, forwards,
backwards’) survive into Middle Turkic.
Some scholars thought they could identify the first syllable of +gArU
with the dative suffix and the second syllable of the suffix with the
suffix +rA dealt with straightway; others have even treated +gArU and
+rA as one suffix. However, the velar of the dative suffix is shown to
belong to the phoneme /k/ wherever the script used is explicit enough
for this purpose, with quite few exceptions; the velar of the directive, on
the other hand, consistently belongs to the phoneme /g/ in runiform,
Arabic and other writing systems.307 The vowel of the second syllable
of +gArU is different from that of the well-attested case suffix +rA. The
only things the two suffixes share are the general local content on the
semantic side and the sound /r/ as to phonic shape; they are quite
distinct also in their historical development. Still other scholars (among
them Gabain 1974, Clauson in the EDPT and now Hesche 2001: 53)
believe in the existence of a directive suffix +rU: It is supposed to have
appeared in kerü ‘back’, bärü ‘hither’, +(X)mArU (1st person sg.
possessive directive), tapa+ru ‘towards’ (adverb and postposition in
DLT fol.473, QB 521 and 5830 in all three mss. and in two other
instances only in the late A ms. and in Middle Turkic as documented in
Hesche 2001: 54) and, as proposed by Hesche 2001, in a postposition
sïôðë<ò which he derives from sïôðë ‘direction’. I would take both of
these words to come from the putative pronoun which became one of
the two allophone clusters of the 3rd person possessive suffix +(s)In+,
sïôðë being similar to the datives aô&ð#ë and muôðë . taparu, apparently
created secondarily out of a need to make the directive content of the
postposition tap-a ‘towards’ explicit, is not, however, attested in Old
Turkic proper. The suffix +(X)mArU being formed in similar manner as
dative +(X)mA and bärü not having an obvious base, we would be left
with kerü as the only word in which +rU would be early. I take that as
well to come from *ke+gärü.
There are two different functions of +rA in Old Turkic, and they differ
in their historical development: The directive-locative in +rA is attested
307 What has been read as yagïkaru in DLT fol.310 and translated as ‘towards the
enemy’ in fact contains a verb kar- ‘to oppose’, the base of the verb for which the DLT
gives the example iki bäglär karïštï ‘The two begs quarelled and fought’; this, in turn, is
the base for karšï ‘adversary etc.’. The ms. spells yaõ ï and qaru separately.
MORPHOLOGY 179
only with a limited set of nominals: We find it e.g. in öö rä ‘to the front
(or east)’, kesrä308 ‘to the back (or west)’, tašra ‘outside’, ÷Gø[ùú ‘inside’,
asra ‘below’ (see the UW for the latter) .
Then we have the use with body parts, e.g. in töpörä ‘on the head’
(e.g. in Suv 7,22, 620,18, 627,3), here called partitive-locative.
Examples for this in section 4.1107 show that, as partitive-locative, +rA
did clearly stay alive in Uygur. +rA appears to have been incompatible
with possessive suffixes in either use, though both uses were bivalent:
The directive-locative, being deictic, was inherently linked to the place
and time of speaking, while the partitive-locative applied only to
inalienable parts of a creature’s body.
Directive-locative +rA was dissimilated to +yA when the stem had an
/r/: beriyä ‘in/to the south’, yïrya ‘in/to the north’, kurïya ‘in/to the
west’ < *berira, *yïrra, *kurïra; cf. Orkhon-Turkic kurïgaru, berigärü
of the Uygur Steppe Empire Taryat inscription (W5) and the like. üzä
‘above’ could possibly also have been formed in this way, as one source
of Old Turkic /z/ is Proto-Turkic *ry; its base could have survived in
Chuvash vir ‘upper’. 309 The variant +yA cannot be connected with the
dative suffix, as has been thought by some,310 both because of the
different meanings of the forms and because +kA often appears in the
same phonotactic surroundings as +yA. All the instances of +yA are,
like directive-locative +rA, petrified and lexicalised. Most important,
the meanings and functions of +yA and the directive-locative fit
together perfectly.
The similative suffix +lAyU no doubt comes from the vowel converb of
denominal verbs ending in +lA-. However, it is a full-fledged case
already in the Orkhon inscriptions (meaning that there needn’t have
been a +lA- verb to have served as base for every +lAyU form attested);
we there find it in the expression op+layu täg- ‘to attack like a threshing
ox’. Cf. OTWF 408 -409, where much of the documentation is quoted;
+lAyU does not seem to appear in any Manichæan source. Clauson
1962: 146 is wrong in thinking that it is “usually, perhaps always,
attached to the name of an animal”, although there is such a group of
instances.
308 Possibly from *ke+sin+rä, from a stem attested in ke+n, ke+din, ke+û , ke+ü=ý and
kerü (< *ke+gerü).
309 All directive-locative items turn out to appear in opposite pairs and üzä would be
the counterpart of asra. Another cognate is üstün, discussed in this section.
310 E.g. Tekin 2000: 79. That +yA may have been a secondary form of +rA was
assumed already in the EDPT (p.XL) and is argued against by T.Tekin 1996a: 330-31.
180 CHAPTER THREE
The comitative +lXgU is rare and early; it has not turned up with
pronouns. We find it in ini+ligü and !"$#%&'(#%*)$% + +ligü311 in the Orkhon
inscriptions. This form has been linked to the Yakut comitative and to
Mongolian +lUgA in Gabain 1974: §424312 and Zieme 1969: 254 (n.
682), later also by Tekin 1991 (who lists all known instances) and
Stachowski 1995, the last three arguing against other etymologies.
In Manichæan sources the comitative has the shape +lUgUn;
examples with unrounded bases are given in section 4.1111. Another
instance 6 unrounded base is iki kutlug el[ig]lär kamag tegitlärin
,-. /-013254with
ï]n tözünlärinlugun (DreiPrinz 119) ‘the two blessed kings
together with all their princes, wives and retinue’; not (for some reason)
adhering to palatal harmony makes it similar to a postposition.
Furthermore, the case suffix is here shared by three nouns. The form of
the suffix in the instance š(ï)mnulugun ‘with the devil’ (Xw 4) is
therefore no doubt also to be interpreted as +lUgUn, although its first
vowel could here also have been taken to be /X/ (since the base ends in
a rounded vowel). The Manichæan variant shows comitative +lUgU
followed by the instrumental suffix +(X)n: The use of the comitative
appears to have been getting forgotten, demanding an expansion with a
well-known case suffix of similar meaning. The Yakut comitative +lX:n
clearly comes from the same expansion. Mongolian +lUgA is better
linked with +lXgU than with +lUgU(n), as Mongolian /U/ corresponds
to Turkic /X/. Whether ortok+lugu in M I 12,10 (translated as
‘teilhabend’ in Zieme 1969: 120) is an instance of this suffix is not
certain: The context ol ädgü mä7 8*9:<;=5>;9@?ACBAED;?
FGFIH ‘May I
participate in that good happiness’ makes it possible that this is a
variant of the suffix +lXg. Scholars like Ramstedt and Poppe linked
Mongolian +lUgA to the Turkic formative +lXg, which is possible as
well. But then, it cannot be excluded either that +lXg and +lXgU have a
common origin, their meanings not being all too different: A split could
possibly have taken place through the specialization of +lXg in word
formation. If this is indeed so, then ortoklugu in M I could be the
missing link between them.
313 Cf. also ö f gRh5i$j i5gRk ‘in its east’ in Sa9,2 and Mi20,6 in SammlUigKontr 2. The
glossary to this work appears to consider kündün+i / kündin+i and ölgRh5i +i attested
there in Sa10, 13 and 16 to be abbreviations of kündün / ölgRh5i yïl mRn ‘its southern /
eastern side’. There is no need to make this assumption, although the two types of
expressions can clearly alternate: Possessive suffixes are often used relationally.
314 We spell the word with ny and not ñ as we reserve the use of ñ to the runiform and
Indic scripts, which have such a letter.
182 CHAPTER THREE
To sum all this up, Old Turkic nominals had the following 11 active
and productive case suffixes: nominative, genitive, accusative, dative,
locative, ablative, instrumental, equative, directive (fully productive
only in runiform and Manichæan Old Turkic), partitive -locative and
similative. The comitative, a 12th case, is neither active nor productive
and absent from pronoun paradigms. The demonstrative pronouns also
lack the partitive-locative, the personal and the interrogative pronouns
both this and the instrumental. The interrogatives further lack the
similative and the personal pronouns fuse the equative with the
similative. The demonstratives thus have 10 case forms, the other
pronouns 8; this is different from Indo-European languages, where
pronouns generally have more cases than nouns. The appearance of
pronouns in the directive case is limited to early texts, as with nouns.
315 An etymology for üzä is proposed earlier in this section in connection with the
suffix +rA.
316 Clauson received this view from Gabain 1950a, who took ‘alt, art, ast’ etc. and
even köt ‘buttocks’ to be instances of a (nonexistent) “ -t-Kasus”. Cf. also aldïrtï and
RR . The UW (entries al III (?) and al(a) ) does not trust the reading kum alï ¡¢£ ¤ -
in M III which is said to be “zerstört” and would like to assign the word to the lexeme
ala¥ . However, the present loss of the word’s fourth character may not have t aken place
when Le Coq read it (as he does not mark it), and one would rather expect kumlug ala¥
if the word were not to have a possessive suffix.
MORPHOLOGY 183
317 This is the editor’s proposal. The Aramaic word mar ‘master’ appears also in l.7 of
the same inscription, where it can hardly be understood in any other way. The term was
in Central Asia used both by Nestorians and Manichæans, and the royal Uygur dynasty
of (present-day) Mongolia had adopted Manichæism. Buyla Kutlug Yargan, who speaks
in the 1st person in this epitaph, says that his father was a Kïrghiz, but he probably
served the Uygur Yaglakïr dynasty and not its Kirghiz vanquishers.
318 We understand the front N in the spelling wkpn2 to indicate the presence of the 3rd
person singular possessive suffix. This n2 may, however, also be a simple error (of
which this inscription is not free) for n1, in which case the word would simply be
kop+un.
184 CHAPTER THREE
319 I would not be so sure as the editor was that this is an error, but it does admittedly
seem to be isolated.
320 öz+i+kä in line a 6 of the military ms. among the Thomsen-Stein documents is
unclear; note also that the runiform characters for k2 and ç è éêìëí*î
êïñðò$ó î
êìôó õ ó÷ö÷èéø
321 In the Uygur and Arabic scripts ù ó£ôUôú$êö£ö÷êû èô NK, in the Manichæan script as NG;
in front-harmony words in these script one cannot therefore actually ‘see’ the fusion. It
is however evident in the runiform and Indic scripts, which have special characters for
this sound, as well as in back-harmony words in the Semitic scripts.
MORPHOLOGY 185
E7,4 probably shows the scribe first writing g1A and then ‘correcting’
to k1A.
The directive shows the same process, with +(X)mArU in the 1st
person singular (e.g. runiform äv+imärü),322 +(I)ü ArU in the 2nd and
+(s)Iü ArU (e.g. barmïš+ïüIýIþ5ÿ in DreiPrinz 17) in the 3 . We do have to
rd
322 The /ä/ of the suffix is not explicit. Apparently because of this form and some
others, Gabain 1974 §§187, 394 and 429 (as well as some other scholars) thought that
Old Turkic had a case suffix of the shape ‘+rU’ ; the matter is mentioned where I
discuss the directive suffix in section 3.124.
323 The absence of an explicit vowel in one of the Semitic scripts (as often happens in
Manichæan texts) cannot, however, be interpreted in any such direction.
324 In his transliteration / transcription Ramstedt writes bälgümin, which means that
there is an explicit I, but in his reproduction of the runiform text there is no such letter.
186 CHAPTER THREE
a relatively late runiform inscription from the period after the Uygur
kaganate, wg1l1mn2, presumably to be read as ogl+um+in.325
In the 3rd person accusative the suffix is practically never rounded;
körkün, used in this function in U II 17,29 and 31 (KIP), might
therefore be considered errors (körkin being used with this meaning
even more often in the same passage).
The accusative of the plural possessive forms in the earliest Uygur
texts has the same shape +Xn as in the singular, e.g. körk’ü 56768:9
yüz’ü 5
67<;
8 ‘your face’ in M I 10,7 -9, isä5;=7
>@? A=8 ‘your task’ 10,13,
öz’ü 56768 ‘your self’ 11,17, ämgäk(ä)mäz’in ‘our suffering’ 11,18, all
in the same text, yerimiz(i)n … özümüzün üzütümüzün ‘our place’, ‘our
self and soul’ in M III Nr.1 IV r 9-11 or bägädmäkä5? 7
>@? A=8 and
ärklänmäki5?47
>@? A=8 in DreiPrinz 66-67 (which is also Manichæan). In
Buddhist texts we get +nI, as with the pronouns, already at a quite early
stage, e.g. in the Sängim ms. of Mait and in TT VI. This does not
exclude +Xn instances beside +nI, as possibly in HTs III 454. Examples
for this and for forms expanded with the plural suffix as ogulanï5 ïzlarnï
can be found in Doerfer 1993: 150.
Possessive suffix and comitative case appear in tä5CB<?*D;
B söz+in+lügün
(Xw 2) ‘with the word of the gods’ and iki kutlug el[ig]lär kamag
EFHG E
? D;
B?8JI=K8LKNMOD*PRQB ï]n tözünlärïnlugun (DreiPrinz 119) ‘the two
blessed kings together with all their princes, wives and retinue’. This
last example from a quite early text is remarkable: The three nouns
share the case suffix as they would share a postposition. The comitative
suffix can’t have come from a postposition (as has been suggested for
some of the case suffixes) because it starts with an /l/, which never
appears at the beginning of words. It does suggest, however, that the
case system originally was a two-tier one, as is proposed below in
section 3.131 in connection with the oblique cases of the personal
pronouns: The accusative of the possessive form appears originally to
have been identical with the oblique base.
325 ‘yoguT koragïTHU ï’ ‘your funeral (acc.)’ in Ongin r4 (cf. T.Tekin 1968: 130 and
Doerfer 1993: 149, where much of the documentation is brought together) is a
misreading, as shown by the unpublished documentation of Thomsen and Wulff: There
is no I at the end and the form is to be read as koragïT ïn.
326 Tekin 1968’s reading ‘ VXWRY +gi’ in Tuñ 23 (upheld in 2000: 84) is problematical for
reasons given in EDPT 420.
MORPHOLOGY 187
only after vowels, with either the locative suffix (e.g. balïkdakï ‘the one
in the town’) or the directive -locative suffix +rA / +yA (e.g. öZ[N\
]^ ‘the
previous one’) or bärü ‘hither’. 327
In Uygur +kI converts adverbial phrases, mostly expressing place or
time, into attributes; it thus functions like a relativising conjunction. In
täZ ri yeri_` \
]^ `ba ]=cdc _e ]fNg ‘the ninth stratum in the land of the gods’
or tört yïZ
f
]hf
] ï eliglär ‘the kings in the four regions of the earth’ (U II
23,20) it is added to noun phrases in the locative. However, we also
find tört yïZ
f
]] ï burxan[lar] (Suv 25,9) ‘Buddhas in the four
directions’ and kedin yïZ
f
]] ï sukavati atlïg yertinei (Suv 46,20) ‘the
jlkmonprqsnbntpvuwx
yz{s%|}2~jyqyb
,|bytltsC|ojytmot|@ytlstyms=Xts=
in the previous example lacks the locative suffix. The reason for this
double behaviour is that yïZ ak is both a noun and a postposition (see
section 4.21). In kamagda üstünki arxantlar (MaitrH Y 502) ‘the
highest arhats’ and soltïnkï oZ tïnkï ‘which are on the left and/or on the
right’ we find it with forms in the orientational formative +dXn. kün
tugsukdunkï kapïg (MaitHami 15 1 a 2) ‘the eastern gate’ and kün
tugsukdunkï yel (M III 19,12) ‘the eastern wind’ show phrases with this
same formative, while in kurïyakï yïryakï öZ räki bodun (Tuñ 17) ‘the
western, northern and eastern nations’ the bases of +kI are variants of
the directive-locative case suffix +rA. ot(ï)rakï ‘the one in the middle’
(Abhi A 109a9 and elsewhere) comes from orto ‘middle’ without a
locative suffix. The absence of a local suffix or a postposition before
+kI is characteristic of temporal expressions (see below); the late form
ot(ï)ra (<< orto) may possibly have been felt to contain the suffix +rA.
The ablative also appears as base, in kišilärdinki toz (HTs III 897) ‘the
dust coming from the (arriving) persons’.
suv üzäki (MaitH XX 1r2) ‘(ships) which are on water’ and taštïn
sïZ
f
[H] ï ... ie` ^ _ ïZ
f
[N] ï (MaitH XI 3r29-30) ‘external ... internal’ show
the element added to postpositional phrases. There are a number of
examples for ara+kï discussed in the UW entry for it; one instance with
slightly aberrant meaning is tört yegirmi [kolti sanï] yalZc]=f
[,f[Nf
] ï
yï[llar] ärtsär (MaitH XXV 4v4) ‘when 14 kot* of years (in use)
among humans pass’. All the mentioned phrases were local. šariputr
birläki arxant toyunlar (thus!; Saddh 36) ‘the arhat monks who (were)
2
%b<l@ X¡
¢£
¤b o¥¦b§©¨ªC«¬¬ o§®¡b¯°ªC¤±³²'£ '¤b¨¬< ¬%´¥<µ¶¢·¬=¯)ª²
birläki
appear in Abhi. In the following highly involved instance, +kI is added
327 The reading of b2 in anta bärüki ašok bašlïg sogdak bodun (Tuñ 46) ‘the Sogdian
population led by Ašok which is on the hither side (of those mentioned before)’ is not
certain but is likely in view of the context. The context of bod(u)nkï k(a)g(a)ngï in
Taryat W5 is not clear.
188 CHAPTER THREE
to what is a static local expression in the context, although this does not
follow from the morphology of the form kuvraglarka tägikilär:
t丹º»¼½ºH¾¿¹H»¼
½
º½=À
½Á½Âà ïk yüzintäkilär, ... beš yï¸Â½=ÃÂ
¹H»Â
½ ï luo xanlarï,
t丹º*Ã@º4Ä:ÃÅÆÃÅÄÈÇR¼
½º4ÉËÊÀÃÀ½Ì½=Å
Í<¹NÂ=ÄOÃÂ
¹H½=ÂÏμ=Äк½º*ü
¹ÒÑÓÑÔ (BT II 1354)
‘(We deflect our punÕ×ÖÙØ ) for the benefit of those who are in the sky and
on earth and on the face of heavens, for ..., for the dragon kings in the
four directions, up to (i.e. including) the ones among the deities and
dragons who are in the eight classes of crowds’. The locative of
*kuvrag+lar+ta is deleted through the addition of the dative suffix
(since there is no case recursivity with nouns) demanded by tägi: The
locative must be understood as if it were there, as this is one element
(which happens to be the last one) in a list of types of creatures located
in various places.
In general, it is the +dA form without +kI which appears in existential
expressions with bar; in the following instance, however, we find
+dAkI: ÖÚÛRÜ@ÝÞßàáâ
ã
ÝÞâßâäåäæÖÙØ
ç ï künlär bar, näçèé³ÖÙØ
ç ï kün birlä az
àåàCêRßâ
ãÝ ÖÙâìë (ms. T III MQ 62 = U 5088 quoted in the note to BT V
438) ‘Whatever there are of great New Days in this world, by no means
do they [have] even the slightest part [in common] with this New Day’.
Added to temporal expressions we have e.g. baštïnkï ‘the one in the
beginning’ (BT II 57) , kenki ‘the later one’ (BT II 117), kïškï ‘winterly’,
aykï ‘monthly (i.e. applying to a month; examples in the UW entry)’,
bir künki ‘pertaining to one day’ (Mait 73v27). In öçÛNâ
á0ÝÞ bärüki ‘the
one which exists since an earlier time’ (BT II 178) and ilkisizdin bärüki
‘which exist from the beginning of all time (lit. from when there was
nothing previous)’ the suffix is added to a temporal postpositional
phrase. bo küntä öçáàÞã
Ý ... berim ‘debts from before this day’ (Mi5,5
in SammlUigKontr 2) also has a noun phrase as base. In ärtmiš üdki
‘the past one (lit. the one pertaining to past time)’ and ken käligmä üdki
‘the future one (lit. the one pertaining to time to come later)’ (B T II 72
and 141 respectively) the suffix is added to heads with attributive
participles. söki (cf. adverbial sö+n), oza+kï and ašnu+kï all signify
‘previous’, the third e.g. in ašnu+kï tabgaß +da+kï oguz türk (ŠU S9)
‘the Oguz (and??) Turks who were previously in China’; 328. kïškï, aykï,
künki etc. are presumably possible only because nouns denoting
stretches of time can be used adverbally also in the nominative.
328 Examples for ašnukï can be found in the entry of the UW, which also gives a few
examples for adnominal ašnu. I have here translated adnominal ašnukï with the adverb
‘previously’, because the Turkic construction has no verb whereas the synonymous
English one does.
MORPHOLOGY 189
3.13. Pronouns
329 Turkish uses it without the final vowel; this misled the EDPT into positing a base
ilk for Old Turkic.
330 Note that a case sequence +nX « +dA is possible also with nouns. +¬L_® ¯°_ , which –
rarely – gets added to nouns as well, probably consists of +¬¢¯ and +lAyU.
MORPHOLOGY 191
331 The stems of demonstrative pronouns and the 3rd person possessive suffix end in
the consonant /n/, deleted in the nominative. The /n/ appears also when the 3rd person
possessive suffix is followed by the antonymy and parallelism suffix +lI. With the
personal pronouns an /n/ element appears in all the forms except in the nominative
plural. In Orkhon Turkic the stem of the collective suffix +(A)gU is also expanded with
an /n/ when possessive suffixes follow (cf. OTWF 97).
192 CHAPTER THREE
332 Note, though, that the nominative singular personal pronouns are usually spelled
without any vowel, as mn and sn respectively.
333 It would have fitted well with the theory of Doerfer 1993: 26, who reads the
accusative form as meni and not mini; he says that the fronting is the result of backward
raising of the vowels by assimilation (see that in section 2l401) and would presumably
take mintä to have followed by analogy. However, such raising comes up only after the
inscriptions.
MORPHOLOGY 193
334 män+ig in BT I D78 is not the accusative of the pronoun but of a noun denoting the
self, i.e. ‘the ego’.
335 In the other ms., written in Uygur writing, both instances are spelled in the normal
form, as mn, without any explicit vowel. Hamilton transcribes the pronoun in KP 19,3
as ‘sen’ but there is no justification for a change sän > ‘sen’; mIn and sIn could come
from analogy with the accusative, locative, ablative and similative forms.
336 The note a reader who says he came from China added with a brush to the
Manichæan ms. edited in M I 23-29 has the phrase !#"%$'&#(*) +-,.) / ‘I am
overcoming sin’ and even min ‘I’ starting a sentence. These instances cannot be taken
as evidence for Manichæan Uygur as the person also has an imperative with s instead of
z, y(a)rl(ï)k(a)sunlar (and uses the ablative with +tIn and not +tAn). What is noteworthy
concerning the two instances in the Xw ms. and #"%$'&#(*) +-,.) / is that in all three cases the
02143%3657368:9;'8<8=4> ?A@CB%D8E94;'FG?AFGH?
IJ> B%D
5EDA>6@#DLKAF#IJ83M02DFGIJ0JNONQPSRTDA>U0V<F#?W0XF#?5Y?GBMZ[5-1\78
responsible for the high vowels, as well as for the irregular vowel of the aorist suffix,
which should be -är.
337 Tekin 1968 translated ‘büntägi’ as “such a man”, assuming backward fronting
assimilation, but such assimilation is nowhere attested either with täg or in any other
way; in antag < an+ täg and montag < mon+ täg there is forward assimilation, the
normal process for Turkic. Aalto writes “Taugenichtse (?)”, which does not fit any
known Old Turkic lexeme.
194 CHAPTER THREE
338 The other letters in the word, and A, do not distinguish between back and front
harmony in the runiform inscriptions from Mongolia.
339 Gabain 1974: 91 refers to a place in Radloff’s edition of the Yenisey inscriptions
for a putative instance of bä # . This is E9,3, for which Orkun instead (referring to the
Finnish Atlas) proposes the reading bä *YpGG-. ; he is followed by Vasiliev in his
atlas. Kurt Vulff’s unpublished materials have bä #-pG-J . The inscription is dealt
with by Kormušin 1997. mA gT% J*% Y¡¢¡f£4¤A¥ fG¡f¦§¥ ¤¨X©Y¡ iptions gives no information
on this matter, as the character inventory for those inscriptions has the same character
for m and ª in back and front contexts; maª#«¬ in HamTouHou 26,10 in Uygur writing
could have been read with front vowels as well (as in fact done by the editor). Cf.
further maªG«G¬ / mä ª ®¯-°V±®A²%³ ´ in VimalaZieme 494.
MORPHOLOGY 195
pronouns (which serve for the 3rd person); the recourse to five of these
appears to have been metre or rhyme related.
A characteristic of the personal pronouns is the plural morpheme
+(X)z (found also in the possessive suffixes), but +lAr is also already
present in all varieties of Uygur. There are a number of instances of
sizlär beside siz but hardly any bizlär beside biz; the former form is
found e.g. in U I 6,2 (Magier; bulsar sizlär) and 43,7, TT II,1 77
(ötläsär sizlär) or MaitH XI 3r2. In oblique cases we have e.g. sizlärni
birlä (U IV A 81), sizlärdä in ablative meaning in early sizlärdä almïš
agu (M I 19,15) ‘the poison taken from you (pl.)’, sizlärn(i)µ in Yos 11.
I have met bizlär only in Mi13,1 (SammlUigKontr 2), a collective
receipt, and in a late Uygur inscription (PetInscr). The reason for the
difference between the 1st and 2nd persons is that siz is mostly used for
the polite singular, sizlär becoming necessary for referring to the 2nd
person plural (polite or not).
The genitive of biz appears both as biziµ and as bizniµ : Orkhon
Turkic, Manichæan texts, sources in Sogdian script (which have some
pre-classical characteristics) all have biziµ , as do Buddhist texts in
general (e.g. in BT XIII 12E r4, TT IV A 24 and B 37 and 41); bizniµ
crops up here and there, however, mostly in late sources (e.g. TT VII)
but also in Manichæan and early Xw 8 (one among three mss.; the other
two missing). sizniµ is even rarer than bizniµ :340 The Suv has 13
examples of biziµ and 34 of siziµ as against only one each of bizniµ and
sizniµ ; siziµ also appears e.g. in DreiPrinz 66, TT II,1 17, 19, 23 and 49
or Pothi 95. The ‘pronominal n’ was clearly originally not par t of these
genitives; the longer forms must be related to the replacement of +(n)Xµ
by +nXµ as genitive suffix.
Above we discussed the form siz+lär. In very late texts that can be
replaced by sänlär, and we have silär and silärniµ in HamTouHou 21,4
and silärni in KP 76,3 and 5. silär probably does not result from a
phonetic dropping of /z/ but from the replacement of the pronominal
plural marker +(X)z by the much more ‘regular’ +lAr.
bän, bini ‘I; me’ and biz ‘we’ share their b° with bo, the demonstrative
of close deixis (presumably pointing at the domain of the speaker) and
bärü ‘hither; since’, which signals movement towards the ‘here and
now’ of the speaker. The °n would then be the ‘pronominal +n’ absent
in biz and siz, normally characteristic of oblique cases; I take it to have
340 What is read as sizn(ä)ng in M I 10,11 and crops up as sizn(i)¶ in Gabain 1974: 92
can just as well be read as sizä¶ , with the vowel lowering occasionally found in pre-
classical sources.
196 CHAPTER THREE
341 The Proto-Turkic nominatives of ‘I’ and ‘you’ might have been *bä and *sä; the
vowel of Bolgar-Chuvash *bi and *si apparently comes from a different analogy with
the oblique stems.
342 The dative has been read as bizkä just once, in Yenisey E36,2; however, according
to Kurt Wulff’s unpublished material the stone shows b 2Izk2I (perhaps biz äki ‘we
two’). This inscription is not among those dealt with by Kormušin 1997.
The form s(i)zä mentioned as dative in Gabain 1974: 92 and said to appear in Yenisey
inscriptions is to be read as äsiz-ä ‘oh, alas!’, as pointed out by T. Tekin 1964. (The
interjection (y)a, dealt with in section 3.4 below, appears to have followed vowel
harmony in Yenisey Turkic though not in Uygur.) Besides, the Old Turkic dative suffix
is not +A but +kA. Nor does a form sizdä, equally mentioned by Gabain on this page
with the mark “(Yen)”, appear in the indices of Orkun 1936 -41 or Kormušin 1997 or in
the DTS.
343 Cf. also mänsiz in BT VIII B 124 and 151 and several times in BT I.
344 sintä in Suv 680,11 is from Buyan Ävirmäk, a passage added to the text at a much
later stage.
MORPHOLOGY 197
345 mäni '(*) ' in Ad3,14 (SammlUigKontr 2) is possibly not an error for mäni ' , as
assumed by the editors, but related to the late use of the genitive as oblique base.
198 CHAPTER THREE
3.132 Demonstratives
Old Turkic has two active demonstrative pronouns and paradigm
fragments of a third one (mentioned below);346 their forms are the
following:347
The singular oblique pronouns have the so-called pronominal /n/ before
the suffix.348 There are, then, oblique stems bun+ and an+ differing
from the nominative stems bo and ol; bo and bun+ also differ in the
vowel, alternating like the personal pronoun. The possessive suffixes of
the 3rd person show the oblique pronominal /n/ as the demonstratives
do.349 In Uygur, the b becomes m when a nasal follows; this
replacement did not yet take place in the inscriptions of the Uygur
steppe empire, as shown e.g. in bunda in Tariat W 2. The /r/ in the
346 A demonstrative šo ”dieser dort,” which is by Gabain 1974: 94 (page top) said to
turn up as šunda in the Yenisey inscriptions, does not exist. The author found this in
Radloff’s ‘Glossar zu den Inschriften am Jenissei’ (Radloff 1987: 373 -4), which refers
to E28 VII and E38 I. The first is to be read as altun so ïš käyiki ‘the game of the
Altun So Y$ `$s .¢¡£O¤¦¥:¨§ª© «Y¤¥¬¤s¦Y®¢A¥ alt(u)n so¯°¢±¦²³´ µ ‘coming to
Altun So¶ ·¸º¹»Y¼½¼¾¿$À ÀÂÁ*ÃÅĬ·zÆÃÈÇYÉ·sʦÃË·¦ÄÌÀÂÁYÃ˼»*ÃÈÆÈûÀͼ»*Ãs½Í.»Î2ÏYÐѨÒ/Ó]·¦½$ɼÔÔ]½Íª½U»*¼iÀ
distinguish between the round Õ 1 and the diamond shaped n^d. Turkish Ö× comes from
the presentative Ø Ö coupled with the pronoun o; Ottoman also has Ö Ø$Ù < Ø Ö Ø$Ù .
347 Forms generated by double case marking are mentioned further on. The Uygur
singular oblique forms of ol are extensively documented in the UW; no instances will
therefore be mentioned here.
348 Munkácsi 1919: 125 has pointed out that the Uralic languages also have a
pronominal +n which appears only with the singular forms. Cf. the +n which is added
to Mongolic nouns in the singular but is replaced by +t in the plural.
349 The Yakut suffix vowel alternation bas+a ‘his head, nominative’, bas+ïn
accusative perhaps preserves an original alternation as found in the Old Turkic
pronouns between bo (low vowel) and bu+ (high vowel).
200 CHAPTER THREE
converb suffix. The uses and meanings of both words are discussed in
section 3.33.
¦L§¨5¦.© ïn¨5¦ ‘then, thereupon, in the meantime’ appears to have been
formed in similar fashion: It probably comes from ¦L§ ¨5¦ and the
temporal converb suffix -ªX«w¬w® , which has the meaning ‘until’ with
perfective verbs. The word is spelled with ¯ in Manichæan writing,
which has no similarity to h° ±5²³ ; this means that it does not come from
´Xµ ¶5´L· (< a¸ ¹.º¼»½ ). The three instances quoted in the UW entry for
¾X¿ À5¾.Á ïnÀ5¾ spell it with double-dotted hÂ;Ã5ÄÅ in Uygur writing, which
would speak for a voiceless velar, but the Manichæan instance is more
dependable for etymology; ¾L¿ À5¾XÆ might have had a secondary
analogical influence. The phrase ¾L¿ À.¾.Á ïnÀ.¾ÇƾL¿ is discussed in section
3.34.
The presentative interjections muna and ona or una (not attested in
any script which would enable a choice between /o/ and /u/) are
discussed in section 3.4; see below in this section for a possible
instance of a similarly formed ïna. These elements are not datives, as
one might think, as there is no evidence for the dative suffix to have
lost its velar in Old Turkic; they may, however, be remnants of some
prehistoric case form.
The plural demonstrative pronouns (e.g. olargaru in ManUigFr r 11,
olarnï in Pothi 99, olarka in Pothi 165 and 227, olarnïÈ and olarta quite
a number of times in Abhi, etc.) are not found in the runiform
inscriptions, except perhaps a single instance of olar. This reminds one
of the fact that, in the earliest texts, the singular possessive suffix is
used also for pluralic possessors. olar is never spelled with two L’s;
there is therefore a (slight) possibility that the /l/ in the singular form ol,
which stands alone in the whole pronominal domain, comes from a
back-formation of the plural form. The process /ll/ > /l/ (documented in
section 2.405 above) is, however, clearly an early one and elig ‘king’ <
el+lig is also never spelled with LL.
double case suffixation having +ÉwÊ as first element are
ËForms
ÌÍ Î5ÏLÐÏ with
(M II 5,81) and ÏLÍ Î5ÏLÐÏ ‘then’ (usually spelled with t and
correlating with Ñ Ò Ó5ÒLÔ Ò ‘when’), ÕÖ× Ø.ÖXÙgÚ>ÛiÖ (see OTWF 410 for
examples) and ÚX× Ø.ÖXÙÚ;ÛiÖ ‘thus’ with raised middle vowels, ÕÜÖL× Ø5ÚL×
(HTs V 21,3) and ÚL× Ø5ÚL× ‘a bit; gradually’ ,354 and ÚL× Ø.ÚLÝ.Ú , which is
attested only in the common phrase æXç è5æLé.æ tägi ‘till then’ (always
spelled as one word). It remains unclear what relationship there is
between æLç èêXëæ>ìiê and æLç è.êXëgæ , a rare Manichæan synonym used in
correlation with kaltï. In íLî ï5íLðíòñ ärü (DKPAMPb 641) and íLî ï.íLð ïn
bärü,355 óôî ï5íLðí bärü (M II 5,8) ‘since this much time’ or íLî ï5íLðíõöî
(Suv 625,21) ‘from then on’, the second suffix is governed by the
postposition. Uygur evidence for the íLî ï5í + and anta+ forms can be
found in the UW. One might expect ÷Løù5÷Lú ÷ûLüLý^þ to signify something
like ‘after all that time’ whereas antada bärü is ‘since then’.
mundïrtïn (KIP, TT VIII) and muntïran (e.g. HTs III 155), andïrtïn
‘from there’ and andïran (also antran e.g. in MaitH XX 14r7, antïran,
antaran e.g. in MaitH Y 230) ‘from there, away; thereafter’ show an
intercalary element +dIr+ which has no independent existence in
Turkic; cf. +dUr, the main variant of the dative suffix in Mongolic.356
This element is attested also in mintirtin ‘from me’ and sindirtin ‘from
you’, where it is added to personal pronouns, and in the interrogative
kantïran / kantaran ‘from where’. Outside the pronominal domain we
have a small group of +dXrtI forms from orientational bases discussed
in section 3.31, üstürti ‘from above’, ÿÿÿ ‘innerly’, kedirti ‘from
behind’ and ö
ÿ ‘from the front’, and ÿÿ*ÿ
oÿ š ‘emerged from
inside (the palace’ in HTs VII 1113, with the ablative suffix. 357 The
suffix in kün+tüz ‘during daytime’ seems to be the only case where it
appears by itself, with word-final zetacism. The exact semantic or
functional difference between the demonstratives with +dIr/dXr+ and
their simple ablative forms remains unclear. It is noteworthy that the
dative is the only primary adverbial case form not used as first element
in any double-case sequence of demonstrative pronouns; Old Turkic
+dXr+ / +dIr+ might thus originally have been an allomorph of the
dative suffix, which it is in Mongolic.
]^ P_I/\
W-`KI/EBEBP
a bFced
fhgji
often find muntada adïn meaning ‘except this’.
Some of these expressions are found also with a variant mïntada, e.g.
mïntada adïn in one of the two mss. in Suv 9,1, mïntada ken in Mait
136r5 and MaitH XIII 4v19, mïntïda ïn[a]ru in Mait 8v27, mïntada
ozmïš kutrulmïš ärmäz sän ‘you have not (yet) been saved from this
situation’ in Mait 116 v9, bilgä biligin mïntada utdukmlon%prqs
teuk (U II
21,11) ‘With wisdom you have succeeded in this matter’. In his Mait
vwxy'xz{1|~}1Av/
x{
w
yH/{Xy:v!w
ye
vj3xyNx{Xy:/{1!vU!/{-vUx{
v/
Stelle”, 360 and the Mait 8v27 instance as “von mir an”, as he read the
word I have transcribed as mïntada / mïntïda as mintädä / mintidä and
thought it was an oblique form of män ‘I’; mindidä does indeed exist
(e.g. in Mait 187r11 quoted in the previous section), and the only thing
which makes this reading less likely here is the context.
358 munïlayu and anïlayu are here not treated as double-case forms, as we have no
+lAyU derivates from the simple bases, as other pronouns use the acusative form as
oblique base and as the presence of its morpheme can hardly have been motivated by
government or by meaning. Concerning the dative cf. ämdi+gä+ in Rab ¡£¢
as quoted by Schinkewitsch 1926: 24.
359 Turkish in fact has a similar combinability, with o+ra+da, o+ra+dan etc. formed
from a base signifying ‘there’. The UW uses the term ‘Hypostase’ for the first element;
that would imply that the stem + first case suffix are equivalent to a nominative, which
is not the case when considered from a content point of view. Rather, the Old Turkic
state of affairs has something of the prepositional combinability we see in English from
under the table.
360 This is also the translation supplied by Geng et al. for MaitH XIII, 4v19.
MORPHOLOGY 205
361 After anïª « ïn there is a hole for the cord binding the leaves together, and it has
been thought that there is a lacuna between that hole and ken. The ablative must,
however, have been governed by ken (the passage is not otherwise fragmentary, as
written in the UW), and it seems possible that nothing was written in that torn stretch.
Zieme in his reedition writes anï¬ « ïn [as ®'¯)°V± ² and translates “davor (?) [oder] danach”
but I don’t think it is possible for anï³´ ïn to signify “davor”. If it were certain that a
word is missing, Kaya’s a šnu would fit the context better. No Berlin fragments have
been discovered for this passage.
362 See section 2.402 for early vowel rounding due to onset labial consonants.
363 Both are possible in the context but the editors have chosen the first translation.
364 This is also from where I quote the instance in Mz 704 v15 mentioned above. The
phrase was misunderstood by the EDPT, which considers it to be the ablative of a noun
‘aµ ¶ ïn’ but also erroneously proposes to emend it to a converb form ‘a · -matïn’.
206 CHAPTER THREE
DKPAMPb 1184) signifies ‘in all sorts of places’; it thus lost its
demonstrative force and got lexicalised.
Beside the stems bo / bun+ and an+ (and possibly *bïn+ as mentioned
on the previous page) there also was a pronominal stem ïn+. The
following case forms are attested: ïn¸¹ , which usually means ‘the
following, in the following way’ (in general opposed to ¹º¸!¹ , which, in
intratextual deixis, is anaphoric);365 ïntïn ‘(the one) on the other side’
(opposed to muntïn, e.g. in a ms. quoted in the note to BT I D 37, or
mïntïn ‘the one on this side’, as mentioned in the previous paragraph);
ïnaru ‘forward; from ... on’ 366 (opposed to kerü ‘backward’ < *ke+
‘back’, or to bärü ‘hither’ as in the phrase ïnaru bärü ‘back and forth’
attested e.g. in TT X 513). ïna, a demonstrative interjection (cf. section
3.4), may be attested in fragmentary context in BT XIII 5,63; as stated
by the editor, its relationship to ïn+ would be similar to muna and ona
or una with respect to bo / mun+ and ol / an+. There is, finally, the pro-
verbal ïn¸ ïp or »¼½» ¾ ‘that having happened; thus’, attested in
Manichæan, Buddhist and Christian sources; see section 3.33 for its
function. It appears to come from the hybrid addition of -(X)p to ïn¿ÀÁ
À¿ ïp (discussed earlier in this section) is, on the other hand, attested
365 In a Mait passage quoted in UW 134a, ÉÊË£ÉÌ4É and ïnË£ÉÌÍÉ (see section 3.342 for
the particle mA) correlate as ‘as ... so’.
366 The EDPT confuses a Î aru (the directive of ol ‘that’) and ïnaru and lists the
instances of both under the former. Another example occurs in Yos 62. From the DLT
and the QB on, ïnaru is shortened to naru.
367 The Orkhon Turkic rule, whereby the only first-syllable vowels not made explicit
were /a/ and /ä/, did not hold in many Yenisey inscriptions. It cannot, on the other hand,
be quite excluded that Ï 2 was, in this case, used for Ï 1 (as is always the case in the
inscriptions of Mongolia).
MORPHOLOGY 207
second and third runiform characters). This stem reminds one of the
Mongolian genitive pronominal form inu.368 ïnÐ!Ñ must have had a
variant ÒÓÐ!Ô since, together with the particle (O)k, we get both ÒÓÐ!ÔÕ
(generally) and ïnÐÑÕ (spelled with double-dotted Q in Manichæan
writing in M I 7,17).369 Ö)×£Ø/ÙÚ Û ÜÝHÞß_à
áÝârÞã:ßäÞà
ßåæãHà1Üãèç1ßãHà ïné!ê and
ëì
é!í existed, since we find the second vowel spelled as a in TT VIII H
1 but as ä in TT VIII K and O (twice). It further helps in determining
(with two instances) the reading of ïnaru as having back and not front
vowels. The runiform script is of no use, on the other hand, in
distinguishing between the front and back possibilities, as the signs for
ì ëì ëî
I, A and the ligature é are all indifferent to palatal harmony. é can
also very well have existed beside ïné ïp; the runiform script would
again be of no help, as the sign for p is also neutral. The back vocalism
of ïntïn follows from the form ïntïnïntakï ‘what is beyond it’ attested in
Suv with X. While ïné!ê can be related to Mongolian inu mentioned
ëì
above, éí reminds one of the 3rd person possessive suffix, which may
have had a consistent front vowel in Proto-Turkic, i.e. not to have
followed synharmonism:370 There are some reasons for believing that
+I(n)+ and +sI(n)+ once were two distinct and independent pronouns
which subsequently got morphologized into complementary
ëì
distribution; the former would then be identical with the stem of éí .
In Gabain 1974: 92 we find that the list of in+ / ïn+ forms has the title
“Reste der 3. Person (?)”; the meanings which these forms have does
not speak for this hypothesis, but the possible link with the 3rd person
ëì ëì ëî
possessive suffix does. On the other hand, the source for é!í and é
clearly was the fronting of first-syllable /ï/, which altered the harmony
class of many one-syllable stems (here especially with the fronting
effect of é ; see section 2.23). In that sense, any consistently fronted
+(s)i(n+) may also be secondary. Doerfer in a 1964 paper quoted in
Zieme 1969: 255 also expressed the view that the pronoun must have
had back vowels, citing Tuvan ïné!ê . In section 3.234 below I propose
that the future suffix -gAy should come from the -gA (discussed as a
formative in section 3.113) through the addition of the nominative of *ï
/ *i before ol replaced it as clitic personal pronoun. In view of the
368 This comes from *ï+nu, as the second vowel is not ü; cf. the Manchu 3rd person
pronoun i, which has in+ as oblique stem.
369 The word spelled with the ïoð/ñ ligature and k2 in runiform U 5 (TM 342) v2 is
presumably also to be read as òôóõ£ö÷ although it lacks a vowel sign in the beginning, as
no ø ùúûùü is otherwise known to exist; ikinti in r10 is spelled with an I the beginning.
370 Thus still today in Chuvash, possibly secondarily also in some other Turkic
languages and, according to the choice of consonants, in Orkhon Turkic.
208 CHAPTER THREE
3.133 Reflexives
käntü ‘own, one’s self’ (in Uygur practically always spelled as KNTW)
is linked to the expression of number, possession and case, expressed
e.g. in bodisatvlar käntüläriniý
ý
‘the
bodhisattvas do not pursue their own peace and happiness but ... (Suv
227,14); its declension differs from nominal declension only in the
accusative käntü+ni (e.g. in DreiPrinz 14). Other forms are the genitive
käntünü , the dative käntükä and the instrumental käntün ‘by itself’.
Here are examples of its use to stress the identity of a verb’s subject in
whatever person: ädgü eli "!#$%'&)(+*$ ïltïg (KT E 23 & BQ E 19) ‘You
yourself erred towards your good country’; käntü tugmïš kïlïnmïš
mä igü tä ri yerin unïtu ïtdï (Xw 14) ‘He completely forgot the divine
land of gods where he himself was born’; käntü on ädgü kïlïn,.-0/213%4567
(MaitH XV 13r16) ‘I myself observed the ten good deeds’. 371 käntü can
also get governed by postpositions; e.g. in the following example, in
which it is used anaphorically: 8+9:;9=<>?< -@8+3-0>3$AB6,-#3$-> är yegädürlär
tïltag bolurlar käntülärni üzä elänürlär (TT VI 267 f.) ‘Again those
same demons prevail; they (the ignorants) are the cause and they (the
demons) rule over them (i.e. over the ignorants)’.
käntü is also used attributively, for stressing possessive suffixes
(where öz is possible as well): inscriptional käntü bodunum (KT N 4,
ŠU E2) ‘my own people’; Manichæan kün t(ä)C DEGFIH;JKML0N%O?PRQ+S$DUT H ïn
kamagka yarotïr372 (M III 7 I r 9) ‘The sun … shines on everything with
its own light’; Buddhist käntü köV ülüm üzä alkunï ökünür män (Suv
100,23) ‘I repent for everything with my own heart’, or kšanti kïlmaklïg
arïg süzük suv373 üzä käntü agïr ayïg kïlïnW0X ïg kirlärin tapW S X S$D ïn yumïš
arïtmïš kärgäk ‘One needs to wash away and clean the dirt and filth of
one’s own grave sins by the pure and limpid water of repentance’ (Suv
142,1).
371 This function as well as the attributive use mentioned below are no doubt the
reason why Tekin 1968 calls käntü and öz ‘intensive pronouns’.
372 Spelled YR’WQ Y Z[G\%]_^ ` acbed%f+b gihd;f .
373 I take sav of the Petersburg edition to be an error, since the context demands an
extended metaphor of dirt getting washed away by pure water.
MORPHOLOGY 209
3.134. Interrogative-indefinites
The interrogative-indefinite pronouns are käm/kim ‘who’, nä ‘what’ and
the pronouns from the stems ka+ and kañu ‘which’, this latter possibly
an expansion of ka+.378 The set of pronouns discussed in this section
376 Cf. Sims-Williams 2002: 235 and 2000a for the way I read this title.
377 The matter is discussed towards the end of section 3.124.
378 The table below lists forms of both kañu and kayu, because the former changed
into the latter with the fusion of /ñ/ and /y/ in the course of the history of Old Turkic;
the table only mentions those forms of kañu which I have found to be attested. Bang
1917: 27-33, dealing with a number of derivations from ka+ in the Turkic languages,
proposes the second syllable of kayu to be a different pronoun, but no such pronoun is
attested anywhere in Turkic.
MORPHOLOGY 211
379 This also holds for kim which is, in Republican Turkish, not used attributively but
replaced by nä in this function.
212 CHAPTER THREE
380 The /ä/ is certain: The 31 line ms. has only one instance of implicit /i/ and that is in
a second syllable; the text generally only makes (non-long) /a/ and /ä/ implicit.
381 See section 3.341 for a form spelled kimi^ which is not a genitive.
MORPHOLOGY 213
_`Pa
bacdbefhgi
j!ilk!monpcq_rg_s t (MaitH XI 15v25) ‘From whom did you
learn this alphabet?’. A pure locative of kim may not be attested
because persons (which is what kim asks about) are not ‘places’ for
things to be ‘at’.
näu ‘thing’ is here taken to come from an obsolete genitive of nä
‘what’ which, in indefinite use, signifies ‘anything’; Bang 1917: 18
already links näu with nä.382 The same must be the source of the
particle näu , which stresses negation.383 In Tuñ 56 näu is used in a way
not (I think) attested anywhere else, again with the meaning ‘any’: näu
yerdäki xaganlïg bodunka bintägi bar ärsär nä buu ï bar ärtävwx
yNz{w}| ‘If
an independent nation anywhere were to have one like like me, what
trouble could it ever have?’.
nx!vx ‘how much, how many; inasmuch as’ becomes a stem for
secondary case forms, as ~ x!vx
!x ‘at some time, at some stage;
whenever’ (U III 43,19, HTs VIII 83, BT I D 291, TT X 539 etc.). It
also gets governed by postpositions and then appears in the case forms
which they demand; e.g. ~ xvx
x?x]w ‘insofar as’ (e.g. in M I 16,16) or
~ xvx
!x
] ~ ‘after some time’ (e.g. in Suv 619,18). These forms
correlate with
!]
!]
tägi etc. in complex sentences in
which the interrogative form appears in a -sAr clause, the demonstrative
form in the main clause (see section 4.65). kim is also attested with
double case suffixation in !5P
h
!pqq (see above).
!! ük (spelled with ü in the ms. Maue 1996 3 nr.12; from nä+ ?)
‘how’; also ‘why’ and nätäg (nä with the postposition täg) ‘like what’
(e.g. in M I 23,5) also became secondary bases and function as
pronominal stems in their own right: We find the instrumental forms
nätägin ‘in analogy to what; how’ (TT V B 44, BT II 939, HTs III 633)
and kin ‘how’ (e.g. KP 12,6) and ‘when’ (twice in U I 6, Magier).
{ ¡ ¢
£"¤ ¥ ¦¨§¨©ª¬«+®!¯
°²±S³N´q±¶µ·³+µ ¸!¹!º»¼
‘Why?’ was characteristic of the
½{¾"¿À ÁÂ Ã!ÄÅÆÇÈ+ÉÊÅ"ËÃÌÉÎÍÅ+ÉÊÅÆÆ
ÉÍÇÐÏoÉÎÍÇ"ÑÓÒÔÂÑÖÕ×ØÂC×SÇÃ
nälük (<
*nä+(A)gU+lXk) instead. Another derivate from the extended base
ÙÚÛ ük is Ù!Ú!ÛÜÝ]ÞÚßÎà ‘in what manner, in what way’, documented and
discussed in OTWF 406. I take this, nätägläti (Suv 65,22 and 588,16),
birtämläti ‘once and for all’ and kaltï (see below) to be formed with two
adverb-forming suffixes, +lA and +tI.384 nämän, an instrumental
382 A number of modern words for ‘thing’, like nimä or närzä, also come from ‘what’;
South Siberian ‘thing’ words like áãâ and äpå come from Mongolic ‘what’.
383 See section 3.341. Stressing negation is also one use of English ‘any’, and cf.
French ne ... rien < Latin rem ‘thing (acc.)’.
384 Cf. section 3.31. We are aware of the similarity of +lA to +lA- and of +tI to the
second part of the negative converb suffix -mAtI which presumably was a converb in its
214 CHAPTER THREE
expansion from nämä < *nä ymä attested e.g. in BT I A1 14, and
HTsBiogr. 27 and 54, appears to be an interjectional interrogative with
a meaning like ‘how!’ or ‘what?’.
The nominative of *ka+ is not attested;385 nor do we have its
accusative or genitive, the other two cases with abstract meaning. A
common case form from this stem is kanta ‘where’ (e.g. Wettkampf 28,
KP 58,4, BT I A11, DKPAMPb 843, several times in Suv all spelled
with
ëíìîðï"ñTò{).ó¬ôh ñõ]ö fol. 38 spells the form with æ ç!è (not é!ê ç!è ) and TT VIII F 7
DLT
kanda; what is spelled kanta was therefore pronounced
with the stop [d] (see section 2.409). We also have the ablative
kand(a)n (Orkhon Turkic: KT E23 twice and the parallel text BQ E19
twice, all spelled with the NT/ND ligature) and kan+tïr+an (Uygur, e.g.
Suv 390,2; kantaran in MaitH XV 7r4) ‘from where’. ÷ø
ùúø can signify
‘how much’ (e.g. U III 36,10) or ‘how far’, ‘where to’, ‘by which way’
(e.g. U II 25,21, DKPAMPb 840 etc. with bar-). kaû ø ‘to which place’
is attested in Mait 12v21: ü!ýþÿ hýü ÷ ÷ ú 7 ø ïmak elitü bardïû
ù ü ù ÷
ka
‘Old age, you have taken away the force in my body;
where should it (i.e. my body) lie down?’. ka
is exceedingly rare; the
‘movement to’ meaning otherwise typical for the dative appears, for
this base, to be covered by
, e.g. in
ïr siz (KP 78,1-2)
‘Where are you going?’.
kanï ‘where?’ serves in regular and rhetorical questions (cf. part V); it
has accusative shape but serves no direct object function. It is used
twice in Orkhon Turkic and appears nearly 70 times in DLT and QB
but I have come across only a single Uygur example.
The meaning and use of
‘how much’ must have been close to that
of , but
may have been used only adnominally (
!
#" #
$ ïl, ka%'&(*) "+
,
lïg, ka%&) "(
ïga etc.) whereas
was mainly used pro-nominally in the narrow sense of the term,
i.e. governed by verbs.
being morphologically more opaque, one
would in principle expect it to be older than nä . It may gradually
have been replaced by , as the Suv, e.g. appears to have had only
two examples of
(both
-'&.) "+ ) but more than 70 examples of
own right prehistorically; the sequence +lA+tI may have been analogically influenced
by +lA-tI.
385 It may have survived in Khalaj, though Doerfer (1988: 108 and elsewhere) does
not express himself very clearly on this: What is actually attested may only be / 0213*4
‘whereto’, which seems to consist of 5 0 fused with yan ‘side’ (cf. kan+ta yan in Tuñ
and other such forms with vowel harmony, in section 3.32). Khalaj 6 0 may also be a
contraction of the dative form. Note that standard Republican Turkish does not have
nere either (though it has nere+de ‘where’ etc. and, for the nominative, nere+si ‘what
place’).
MORPHOLOGY 215
7898 .386 :; 9 is probably derived through a short variant of the equative
suffix, the full form presumably serving as base to :; 9 ; 7 ‘when’ (<
*ka+9 ; +n with the instrumental).
:; 9 ; 7 is rarely interrogative (there is such an instance e.g. in
Aran< =?>A@CBD@=?>E=GF!HI$JKL$@NMOKPMQ=RTS#MUS?VW@XVR=YZ@XV[@\L]=-=^=?>E=?VL$M_@`#V[@YNa
@XV`cb'S*L
some point in time’; two examples for that are quoted further on in this
section, some additional ones in section 3.31. It often introduces
temporal clauses with -sAr or with -dOktA (section 4.633). defege is
also temporal and might be translated as ‘at some stage’; this is another
case of competition between ka° and nä stems.
kaltï is attested as interrogative pronoun in IrqB 45, in the sentence
kaltï uyïn ‘How should I get on?’. It presumably comes from ka+la+tï,
with the middle vowel syncopated due to strong accent on the first
syllable: The ka+ forms appear to have first syllable stress, as we see
from modern forms such as h!i df i!jlki d!mn jlki dPn jpoi f i d jlkiqri etc.. The
sequence +lA+tI is earlier in this section documented also from other
interrogative bases.387 qaltï is attested as an element introducing object
clauses of content in yaroklï karalï kaltï katïlmïš ... tepän biltimiz (Xw
135) ‘we know how light and darkness were mixed’ and is also used as
a particle signifying ‘for instance’; it is often found in comparative
clauses (section 4.632). kalï appears instead of kaltï in Qarakhanid,
where it is rather common. In DLT fol.549 we read that it signifies
‘how’ or ‘if only’ or ‘when’ and get examples for two of these
meanings; here is the interrogative one: sän bu ïšïg kalï kïltïs ‘How did
you do this affair?’. No etymological explanation for kalï is
forthcoming; it could also (though attested less early) have actually
been the source of kaltï.
kañu > kayu ‘which’ must also somehow be related to *ka+, though
the exact relationship is, again, obscure tvu.wxSy>Ez(V`cLN{=}|~?{>S?VR
Tibetan script instances spell it with u, 7 with o and 3 (in BudhKat)
have kayol < kay’ ol ‘which (is) it?’. We have opted for kayu, also
because this variant appears in 8 different mss. whereas the 7 instances
386 Note that Turkish has only
* ‘how many’ but no ** (though it has nice in
exclamatory or indefinite use in dialectal, literary or archaic language); it appears to
have replaced *. by ..*.]y* has to be adnominal also in Turkish, which means
that there has to be a count word like tane in case the speaker wishes not to use it
adnominally.
387 An instance in another runiform ms., TM 342 2v11 in KöktüTurf appears in
fragmentary context, as the facs. shows better than the edition; it can hardly be
interpreted as in EDPT 618b.
216 CHAPTER THREE
of kayo are found only in the mss. TT VIII H and L.388 From kayu come
kayunu and r(P (both attested e.g. in BT XIII 2,91), kayuka (BT
XIII 38,30 and 21,67, Suv 375,21 and 22, 6 times in Abhi etc.) and
kañu+garu (twice in ms. T I D 200 = Mz 774 last edited by Zieme in
AoF VIII 242). kañu+da appears in U II 6,13 and 16; kayuda is
common, e.g. DLT fol. 62 and TT VIII A 36 with dh, U II 29,11. The
QB syncopates it to kayda to suit the metre; we also find e.g. kayda
barsar ‘wherever he goes’ in Mi33,3 (SammlUigKontr 2), a contract.
kayu+dïn ‘from where’ is also common, e.g. in BT I D267; kayutïn
sï is parallel to antïn sï in U II 29,19. kayu+sï sigifies ‘which of
them’.
I will deal with ! ï in greater detail, because it has not yet been
quite pinned down as to form or meaning, although attested a number
of times in early texts. The word appears in the mentioned shape in the
two Buddhist examples, ¢¡*£?¡* ¥¤¦
¤(§CU§ ¨© ï ¤
sönmäz (Mait 110v7) ‘Our suffering through hunger and thirst never
ever ends’ and ïWª«¬ ¨( (Alex 15) ‘May it never be!’. The
three runiform examples in Tuñ have no vowels: a .¡*® ¬ ¤¤(¡.¤
k1¯?° 2± ärsär ol bizni – xaganï alp ärmiš, aygu ïsï bilgä ärmiš – k1¯?° 1±
¤_¡.¤-² ¬ ®(*³¤#§\T²( (Tuñ 20-21) ‘If (we) do not fight it (i.e. the Türk
confederation) it will, at some stage – its ruler is said to be valiant and
his advisors are said to be clever – it will definitely kill us at any time’.
The Tuñ 29 instance of the term (with a formulation very close to Tuñ
20-21, also with ärsär) is spelled with n2 as in Tuñ 20, which should, I
think, be explained by the fronting influence of the /ï/ (as happens often
in these inscriptions).389 The four Manichæan examples have a single
explicit vowel each; the third vowel is explicit in none of them but we
can take it to have been /ï/ in view of the Mait and Alex instances: üzüti
´µ#´ ï)·¶ ¸p´µ#£ ¬ ³'² ¶ .³ ¸ ª ³ ¬ ¦¹³ ïnl(ï)g özi ¤ ¶ º ¤»¸T! ¬ !® ²¨!§ ¤
388 kaño may still have been the original form and it cannot be excluded that we would
have found that more frequently if there had been earlier Br¼ ½*¾À¿ ÁûÄ*ÅÇÆÈÁ2ÉËÊyÆZÌyÍ»ÎyÏÑÐ
1995: 180-181 takes this (with unrounding) to have been the source of kaya found in
some modern languages.
389 Reading Tuñ 20 and 29 as ka Ò nä Ó and explaining ‘ka ÒÔ.Õ Ó
Ö in Tuñ 21 with se-
condary synharmonism would go well with the Manichæan examples but would leave
the Mait and Alex instances with yod unexplained. Tekin 1994 reads × Õ*ÒÕ.Ô näÓ in Tuñ
21 but retains × Õ*Ò nä Ó in the other two places; this is unlikely in view of perfect
parallelism between the passages. Possibly all three Tuñ instances should be read as
× Õ*ÒÕ*Ô.Ø*Ó , especially if this is ultimately fused from × Õ*ÒÕ*Ô näÓ (attested e.g. in Mait
11r11); the n1 ~ n2 variation would be explained by the /n/ being standing a back and a
front vowel: Note that the the only Tuñ instance of näÓ by itself (l.56) also appears with
a positive, not a negative verb. The high vowel of × Õ.ÒÕ*Ô ïÓ would be secondary.
MORPHOLOGY 217
t[u]g[mïš] ärsär ... (ZiemeTexterg 2,33) ‘If their souls should, at some
stage, have been born in the body of an evil four-legged creature or the
body of a male or female slave, ...’; ] L’R ÙÚÛrÜÚÞÝÚÜßÚà!áß ï)âãÝÚäÚ 390
bulgantï irinÜvÙåæ'ä ïlar (M III Nr.1,IV v5) ‘The [...]s all so and so many
times felt terrible and became wretched’; ÝßÚà#ÜÚáß ï)âçáèâéÚäCáß ï)â
äšgäkn(i)âãêë»ìºëí ï391 örmäz (M I 16,11) ‘At no stage do horns ever
grow on horses or donkeys’; another instance of ÝÚÜÚáßÚà!â näâ appears
in M I 32,6 in fragmentary context. In the two last-mentioned instances
the word is followed by näâ to strengthen a negation, as in the Mait
instance.
In nä törlüg aš ašamïšïn ... näÜèì
Úîlì
Ú(î.Úê ïšïn öyür ‘He remembers
what sorts of food he ate, ... how many years he lived, ...’ (MaitH XV
2r4) nä and áèÜè actually serve as relative pronouns, forming heads for
object clauses; cf. also yüz mïâïä'ðêÚáñëæÚä ï näÜè¢Ý!ðÜ#ò,ìóäêUòôîò\áÜè
sözläzün (TT V A 67) ‘Let him say it a hundred, a thousand, ten
thousand or as many times as he is able to’. The correlative
constructions mentioned below and discussed in section 4.65 also use
such pronouns as relative pronouns. nä törlüg ‘what sort’, nä yaâæ ïg ‘by
what manner’ and the like also appear, of course, in interrogative
sentences and subordinated interrogative clauses.
390 With reference to this passage Gabain 1974: 100 spells the word as ÷ ø*ù*úù.û
ü
because the second vowel is not explicit and N looks like alef; this is, however, the only
instance with this spelling.
391 Spelled MWY’WZY, and the editor assumes that the alef is of the superfluous sort;
the text does in fact have a few superfluous alefs. Reading müynüz or muynuz would,
however, be just as possible and might be considered in view of the general Turkic
account given e.g. in the EDPT. müû ýþ in H I 55, DLT, Chagatay and modern
Southeastern Turkic languages cannot be linked to the main Old Turkic variant within
Old Turkic sound laws.
218 CHAPTER THREE
berip … üntürdi (KP 28,4) ‘He fully gave him whatever he needed (=
all he needed) and … sent him off’. nä is here attributive to kärgäk
(note that ‘whatever’ is also derived from ‘what’) and the wh ole noun
phrase is put into the accusative case.
We have indefinite kim, ‘whoever’, in oglanïmïznï altaÿ ï kim ogrï
ärsär anï tapalïm (DKPAMPb 164), which signifies ‘Whatever thief
there is who robs our children, let us find him’. In HTsBiogr 294 and
301, kim m(ä)n and kim biz appear to signify ‘somebody like me’ and
‘people like us’ respecti vely. ÿ signifies ‘at some stage’: ÿ
ÿ
ï bädük boltïlar, anï !
ïnta käntü özi
… adïn a" #! ï (U III 80,3-7) ‘Eventually the two sons of the
merchant Jayasena became grown ups (but) in the meantime he himself
died and passed to a different existence’. ÿ$ ‘at some point’ is used
e.g. in ÿ$yÿ%&
$'('*)+ ,(-.&/$'0&!12354*)6879,0 !+ ï
(U III 86,18) ‘At some point he got certain news that his elder brother
had arrived, (so) he immediately went to the town (of Benares)’; a
subordinative interpretation cannot be excluded, giving ‘When he got
certain news that his elder brother had arrived, he immediately went to
the town (of Benares)’. ÿ is ‘a few, a number of’ in ÿ: ! 6!
yorïsar (HTs III 764) ‘if one walks some miles’; tut[gal]ï kaÿ;=<
bolmadok (BT XIII 4,4) ‘It has been impossible to catch him for a
number of days’; ÿ> ïn toyïn egil kabïšïp (PetInscr) ‘(we – eight
proper names), quite a number of monks and lay people came together
to ...’. Indefinite adnominal kayu ‘any’ can be found in BT II 257 or
Heilk I 180.
Indefinite pronouns can also be used together with the conditional
form. In the following example we know that this is the case, as the
clause is parallel to a normal conditional clause: alkïšïmïz ötügümüz
tä rikä arïgïn tägmädi ärsär, nä yerdä tïdïndï tutundï ärsär … (Xw
161-2) ‘If our praise and prayer did not arrive to heavens in purity, if
they got hampered and hindered anywhere …’. In '!+?*= = ÿ$
yala 0 " ïnta tugmakï bolsar ymä, ... ‘even if, however, he should
anywhere at any time get born in a human birth form ...’ (U II 29, 11 -
12), the pronouns are also obviously indefinite. Otherwise, clauses
where indefinite pronouns appear with the -sAr form are discussed in
section 4.65, which deals with correlative relativisation, and in section
4.633, which is about temporal clauses.
Phrases consisting of interrogative-indefinite pronouns + ärsär whose
pronominal reference is not taken up in correlative manner are used for
A
stressing the generality of a statement: ol sa@ !B
! !C
(DKPAMPb 352) ‘You don’t have any sort of need for that’. With kim:
MORPHOLOGY 219
392 This is akin to the doubling of bir for distributive meaning, and cf. ö g hTij+h
‘various’ in Pothi 235.
220 CHAPTER THREE
seven days’ 396 used similar to bir otuz küntä ken (13v23) ‘after the 21st
day’. In both cases the numeral serving as framework to the counting is
placed between the denumerating numeral and the head with no affix or
other element to show its function in the construction.
The members of the tenth decade cannot be formed in this manner, as
altï yüz, literally ‘six hundred’, would be ‘600’ and not ‘96’: These are
constructed with örki from ör- ‘to rise’: säkiz yüz altï örki ‘896’. ‘103’
is $* (MaitH XV 10v5) but ‘99’ is tokuz örki (U 1426 r3 edited in
Ehlers 1998). An instance expressing ‘99’ as yüzkä bir ägsük i.e. ‘one
less than a hundred’ is quoted in the note to that passage.
Still another means for adding digits to decades or decades to
hundreds etc., found in all periods, is to state the higher unit first, then
artok+ï ‘its supplement’ and then the low er unit, as yüz artokï kïrk
tümän (Xw 12) ‘1 400 000’ (literally ‘hundred plus forty myriad(s)’),
otuz artokï bir yašïma (BQ E28) ‘when I was in my 31st year (i.e. when
I was 30 years old)’ or tört yüz tokuz on artokï beš ‘495’ (literally ‘four
hundred(s) nine ten(s) plus five’. beš yüz artokï äki otuzun ïlka (M I
12,15) ‘in the year 522’ and iki mïx+$+2 ï beš kïrk (MaitH XXV
4r23) ‘2235’ combine both methods: äki otuz ‘22’ and beš kïrk ‘35’
have the constructions mentioned above. on artok yeti yïl (HTs VII 163)
‘17 years’ (with no possessive suffix on art-ok) is yet another
possibility; classical and later texts can also leave artok away
altogether, giving e.g. älig bir (DKPAMPb 85) ‘51’.
In Uygur yarïm is ‘half’, iki yarïm ‘two and a half’. In Orkhon Turkic
and in inscriptions of the Uygur Steppe Empire, sï appears to have
been ‘half’ or ‘a part’: [sïB(
%5d ïg yulgalï bardï, sï
%
sü%` 3 (BQ E 32) ‘Half / Part of their army went to plunder
(our) homes, half / a part came to fight (against us)’; sï ï bodun i%'=35
sï ï b[odun ... (ŠU E 6-7) ‘Half / Part of the people submitted, half / a
part ...’.
Throughout Old Turkic from the Orkhon inscriptions till the very
latest texts, äki / iki ‘2’ has the shape äkin / ikin when governed by the
postposition ara ‘between’. Since postpos itions govern the accusative
form of stems with possessive suffixes, it appears that the second vowel
of äki / iki was felt to be, or originally was, the possessive suffix (see
section 4.21 for the construction). In that case, the first syllable may be
*äk ‘addition, joint’, a word attested in the Oguz languages (in
Turkmen with a long vowel), and äki may originally have signified ‘its
addition’.
396 And not, apparently, ‘in the second, third ... week’. Ordinals are discussed further
on in this section.
222 CHAPTER THREE
iki ülügi atlïg ärti, bir ülügi yadag ärti (Tuñ 4) is an example of how
the early Turks expressed fractions, if (as usually translated) this
signifies ‘Two thirds (literally ‘two of its parts’) were mounted, one
third (literally ‘one of its parts’) were on foot’.
Ordinals from ‘3’ on have the suffix + · ¸¹=º» ; e.g. ¼½¾+¼2¿º» ‘4th’,
t ÀÁ=Â$Ã$º» ‘9th’. ¼¿Äź(ƺ» ‘10000th’ is ‘last, used for self -depreciatory
purposes’ (as pointed out by S. Tezcan in a review). However, cf.
¼½¾+¼Æ'º» with /I/ in the suffix in ThS I,1, a runiform ms., and ÇÈ
ÉËÊ ¿Ã=Æ'º»
in a relatively early text, Saddh 13. + · ¸¹=º» may have been borrowed
from Tokharian, where the ordinal suffix has a similar shape. bir
Ê8ÈdÌ Æ'¾Ä1Æ'º» ‘eleventh’ appears several times in SammlUigKontr.
MORPHOLOGY 223
397 In Fedakâr 189 (Sogdian script) s]utar bitig PŠD’YK tägzin Ý Þ`ߪà`áãâß äæå3ç5èdéç5êçªàëåì&åí î&ïð
text, first scroll’. The merely transliterated word is clearly also a derivate of baš but the
editor’s transcription as bašd(ï)ñ is not certain.
398 Formed from the base of ilgärü ‘forward’ with the suffix +kI; see section 3.126 for
a discussion.
399 Cf. German einundzwanzigster ‘21st’ vs. erster ‘1st’ and similar French vingt-et-
unième vs. premier.
400 [bir ikinti]sikä in U5 (TM 342) 2r1 (SEddTF 541; edited by Le Coq and recently
reedited by Zieme) is a conjecture and even the s2 is rather damaged.
224 CHAPTER THREE
Words signifying ‘all’ are kamag / kamïg / kamug (this last attested in
ManTüFr 161, Saddh 37 or ms. M 657 r1 and 3 quoted in the note to
BT V 521),403 alku,404 yomkï and tolp (all three deverbal), tüzü, kop (a
number of times in the different Orkhon inscriptions), {yoiy(~ barï (both
< bar, i.e. originally ‘as much as there is’ and ‘what there is’ 405) and
402 Both forms appear to be attested well; cf. e.g. the index to SammlUigKontr.
403 Borrowed from Iranian and a cognate of Persian hama.
404 This and kop are definitely not postpositions, as stated by Gabain 1974: 135, 142.
405
@
@ @_;U as binome. That U should come from *bar-ïr+ as
written in Gabain 1941: 59, is, I think, unlikely for semantic reasons.
226 CHAPTER THREE
406 Not in DTS or EDPT but used with this meaning eleven times in BT XIII 2, 5, 10,
21, 22, 27, 36, 50 and 54, sometimes in binomes with kamïg, tüzü, bar«¬ or yomkï.
407 This is not a ‘Nebenform’ of kamag, as A. v. Gabain wrote in the n. to TT IX 26,
but haplologically simplified from *kamag+agu. The base is known to have been
copied from Iranian; no Iranistic or Turcological justification for such a ‘Nebenform’ is
known to me.
MORPHOLOGY 227
‘silver’ or ®¯*° . During Yuan rule, trade was effected also by böz ‘cotton
cloth’.
For dates, the twelve animal cycle of years is used from the
inscriptions of the Uygur Steppe Empire on, and till the latest texts.
Months are numbered (ekinti ay etc.), but ®¯4±[²U¯³K¯*´K¯µ is used for the
last, aram ay for the first month. Days are numbered starting from the
new moon (ya¶ ï ‘new’) as, e.g. · ®¸µF¯ ¶ ïka ‘on the 3rd day of the month’.
This reckoning proves that the months were indeed moon months, as
warranted also by their name (ay ‘moon’); yet not all of them can have
been pure moon months, as they did not wander through the seasons (as
Islamic months do). Cf. in general Bazin 1991 for Old Turkic dating.
-(X)m is used for forming ad hoc units of measure: yeti tut-um talkan
(TT VII 25,10) are ‘seven handfuls of parched grain’, bir aš bïš-ïm+ï üd
(HTs) is ‘the time it takes for food to get cooked’, while bir tamïz-
ïm+®4¯ +kya (InscrOuig V 45) is ‘just as little as a drop’.
3.2. Verbs
objects.Verbs formed with -(X)n-, -lXn- or the rarer -(X)d- and -(X)k-408
are reflexive, anti-transitive (i.e. intransitive derived from transitive) or
middle. Verbs formed with -Ur-, -Ar-, -gUr-, -tUr-, -Xz-409 or -(X)t-
(-(I)t- in later Old Turkic), finally, are just transitive if their bases are
intransitive but causative if the bases are transitive; however, -(X)t-
derivates from transitive bases tend to be reversive, i.e. to get passive
meaning. See section 4.5 for more details on the use of these suffixes.
If the base is a nominal clause, the opposition between intransitive
and transitive is taken care of by the auxiliaries är- ‘to be’, bol- ‘to
become’ and kïl- ‘to do’: balïg bašlïg kïl- (Mait 78v1) ‘to wound’ i s the
transitive or causative counterpart of balïg bašlïg bol- (Xuast I 9) ‘to
get wounded’, adak asra kïl- ‘to subdue’ (Mait 5r4) of adak asra bol-
‘to be subdued’ (Suv 313,1), yok yodun kïl- ‘to annihilate’ of yok yodun
bol- ‘to be destroyed’.
408 Gabain 1974 § 160 (and already in the note to l. 1805 of her edition of parts of HTs
VII) expressed the view that the meaning of this formative is ‘intensive’, mentioning the
verbs alk- ‘to use up, destroy etc.’, ‘ ök-’ ‘to think’ and könük- ‘to burn up’. The
semantic relationship of the first with al- ‘to take’ is dubious, the second, quoted from
U II 11,8, is a mistake for (y)ük- (*hük-) ‘to heap up’ (what here appears is the
lexicalised noun ükmäk ‘heap’) and the third (from M I 17,12) should be a scribal error
for the very common küñ-ür- ‘to burn (tr.)’. OTWF 524 -5 argues against the existence
of Old Turkic suffixes consisting of vowels bearing ‘intensive’ meaning.
409 Can in no way be related to -Ur-, as thought by some scholars, as the suffixes
differ both in their vowels and their consonants.
410 Only in the Suv text do we find -Ã`Ä2ÅPÆ used as action noun (cf. section 3.282).
230 CHAPTER THREE
There are five further verbal categories, tense-aspect (for which see
section 3.26), status, mood and, together with finite verb phrases and
(partly) with the conditional, the subject’s person and number. Status
and epistemic mood are the topic of section 3.27 while volitive mood
and modality are dealt with in section 5.1; see section 3.231 for the
forms of the volitional paradigm.
Most Old Turkic verb forms use pronouns for agentive person and
number (at least in the first and second persons), but the constative
preterite uses possessive suffixes (and apparently also the -sXk form as
mentioned in section 3.26).411 The volitional paradigm amalgamates
person and number with the volitional marker; -(A)lIm, the 1st person
plural hortative suffix, e.g., is opaque as to plurality. However, personal
pronouns are by no means excluded from joining volitional forms: Cf.
Ó+Ú
e.g. siz ‘you (pl.)’ added to the 2 nd person plural imperative of tïÙ - in
bärü tïÙ laÙ siz (AranÛ Ü@ÝßÞáàUâäã4àåçæqèKÞ3éÂêPÜ@ëíì2Ü@ãÜ2îPï3ð7éâÞ+ñíÞqëò2ó*ô>ÞêPÜôõ
addressing a single person.
One can also add +lAr to the 2nd and 3rd person plurals, and +lAr is
also found optionally in the 3rd person plural of other forms (e.g.
ö÷4ø[ùUúVûùü+øý
‘they are said to have argued’ in a runiform ms. or külmišlär
411 In a contract published in Usp 24 there appears to be an instance of the 2nd person
possessive suffix added to the form in -þÿ :
ï ‚Otherwise
you will lose all’. At some stage in Middle Turkic the conditional also acquired
possessive suffixes referring to agents.
MORPHOLOGY 231
‘they are said to have laughed’ in Yos 18). Instances like alku tïnlïglar
bo ... kišig sävär taplayur ayayur agïrlayurlar (TT V A 113) ‘all
creatures love and honour this person’, where four verb f orms share the
suffix, or the sentence yer suvlar suv üzäki kemi osuglug altï törlüg
täpräyür kamšayurlar ‘The continents shake and rock six ways, like a
ship on water’ (MaitH XX 1r2) might suggest that it comes from the
plural demonstrative pronoun olar. This is a possibility, especially in
view of the fact that ol, the singular counterpart of olar, is often used as
a copula, without demonstrative content. The fact that +lAr is shared
between more than one word does not, however, make this idea more
likely, as case suffixes, for instance, can also be shared. Since the
quoted forms are participles in predicative use, one might think that
what we have here is the participle (which is, after all, a nominal form)
in the plural. Note, however, that Uygur also has -zUnlAr (e.g. in M I
29,16 and 30,18) and -dIlAr for the 3rd person plural of the imperative
and the preterite respectively (beside -zUn and -dI, which can also be
used with a plural subject), although these are not nominal; these prove
that /lAr/ has become a plural marker for the verb as well. Another
possible explanation for these forms is that verbal -lAr started from the
participles and reached the truly finite forms by analogy.
In none of these paradigms does Old Turkic show the distinction
inclusive / unmarked, known from some modern Turkic languages.
The expression of person and number is not obligatory in early texts,
e.g. with sülämäsär in a!#"#$%'&(*),+.-+/&+#$102".34"#5 ï!6+#$&+#$87.):9<; =5>; – xaganï
"<) ?@+#$-A;CBEDF"G.H%#3 ïsï bilgä ärmiš – 02".32"#5 ï!I+#$J&+#$6K.)L(#$M,+.3N;O0PK k (Tuñ 20-
21) ‘If (we) do not fight it (i.e. the Türk confederation) it will, at some
stage – its ruler is said to be valiant and his advisors are said to be
clever – at some stage (it) will definitely kill us’; reference to the
confederation involved has also to be supplied from the context, and the
writer may have meant that reference to be understood as a plurality: I
refer to “the Türk confederation” only in order to adapt my translation
to the Old Turkic text. Outside Orkhon Turkic, subject plurality is very
often expressed explicitly even when it also follows from the context,
but not where a plural subject is adjacent: Cf. yäklär kälir ‘The demons
come’ and tanmïš üzütlär tašïkar ‘The rejected souls come’ (M II 11,10
and 13). This holds also when the subjects are human, e.g. bolar mini
bilmäz ‘They wouldn’t recognise me’ (TT X 473 -4), referring to
Brahmans. In kamag kara bodun yïgïlïp bir ikintiškä ïn34"QMSRT?UMLRBMT;V),+#$
(DKPAMPb 159) ‘All the common people assembled and told each
other the following’ the plurality of the subject is lexical but not
morphological, while verbal plurality is expressed both by plural and by
232 CHAPTER THREE
412 okï-t-mïš refers to the object of the verb, as -(X)t- derivates from transitive verbs
often do.
413 This is not an error, as double /l/ is often simplified.
MORPHOLOGY 233
The Old Turkic finite verb differs from infinite verb forms in that it
normally expresses the person and the number of its subject(s), in that
its typical task is to serve as a sentence predicate; it cannot, on the other
hand, be used adnominally or adverbially. The person..<
j4T
4#/T
has six members, three in the singular and three in the plural. The
category can be said to be optional with finite verb forms as well, since
a verb form in the 3rd person may in fact not be coupled with any
reference to a subject; the content then corresponds to English ‘one’ as
subject. The verb is in the plural also if there is only a single subject in
the nominative, in case there is another one in the instrumental case
form; e.g. xaganïmïn sü eltdimiz (Tuñ 53) ‘I went on campaigning
together with my khan’: There is a similar rule also in some other
languages such as Turkish and Russian. Old Turkic has no distinction
between an inclusive and a neutral 1st person plural (i.e. sensitivity to
whether any third party is included in the reference to the 1st person
plural beside the speaker and the addressee) which we find in some
Turkic languages.
In Orkhon Turkic only the verb forms of the volitional paradigm have
a true person-number conjugation; the mood suffixes are amalgamated
with person and number and do not fall into one morphological slot
together with the indicative tense-aspect or the participle and converb
suffixes. Still, the early Turks did not conceive of indicative verbal
content only in nominal terms: There is nothing nominal about the
purely predicative future in -gAy as documented in the sources, and
indirective -mIš cannot (or no longer can) be equated with the verbal
noun of the same shape.414 Imperfective aspect, the one dominating the
present-tense domain, is exclusively participial; thus especially the
aorist. Note that the participles in -(X)gmA and -(X)glI (and -gAn,
wherever it appears) are never found in fully predicative use;
nevertheless the participial and the finite uses of the -Ur form cannot be
considered to be mere homonyms, as they are too similar in content.
The Orkhon Turkic -4 future also originates in a present participle
attested as such in Uygur and living on in Western Turkic; in Orkhon
Turkic it moved into the future tense (in fact only into the positive
414 Prehistorically, -gAy may have contained the suffix -gA forming deverbal nouns;
see sections 3.112 and 3.234. Besides, -gAy is not attested in Orkhon Turkic; that may
nevertheless be said to be largely nominal in the functioning of its indicative verbal
system, as Classical Mongolian was.
234 CHAPTER THREE
the sentence was understood to hold for any subject, what is sometimes
called ‘impersonal’.
singular plural
st
1 person -(A)yIn -(A)lIm
2nd person Ø, -(X)¶ -(X)¶ , -(X)¶ lAr
3rd person -zUn -zUn, -zUnlAr
415 I use this term instead of the more usual ‘imperative’ because the 1 st person forms
cannot be said to give orders. The other persons are also used for a much wider array of
interactional contents than the use of the term ‘imperative’ would suggest.
416 gIl is a particle discussed in section 3.344.
417 Hac òCóô1õ ö÷ øù
úûCüý1ûCüTùþÿû concerning -Ay; it occurs in QB 560 (B against AC),
1033 (BC), 3186 (C against B) and 4172 (BC against A) and thus does seem to be real.
236 CHAPTER THREE
418 Another feature shared by the Sogdian script mss. and the QB (as well as Early
Ottoman) are the fused inability forms of the form al-u-ma-dï ‘he was unable to take’.
419 Transcribed as bir’ög by Le Coq, who adds: “Lies birüng?”. I have accepted the
reading proposed by Zieme 1969:119, which the facs. shows to be at least possible.
Arat, who reedited the p S' ' ? ' 7¡£¢{¤ ¥
¦¤ § (thus!) and birzün.
MORPHOLOGY 237
420In QB 4975 ms. B has kiräliñ against kirälim of AC, in 5964 baralïñ in A against
baralïm in BC, both in dual and not plural use. Cf. also Ata 2002: 79-80 for Harezm
Turkic usage.
238 CHAPTER THREE
singular plural
1st person -dXm -dXmXz
2nd person -dX -dXg -dX Xz ~ -dXgXz, -dX XzlAr
3rd person -dI -dI(lAr)
421 Gabain 1974 § 106 assumes such a suffix, for which she gives three examples: yïd
‘smell’ which she links with yïpar ‘perfume’, tod ‘full’ which she relates to tol- ‘to fill
(intr.)’ and kid ‘behind’, which is supposed to be related to kin with the same meaning.
The first is impossible because there is no suffix ‘-par’, the second because there is no
such adjective as tod ‘full’ but only a verb stem of this shape and the third because there
is ke+din ‘behind’ (formed with a suffix dealt with above, from *ke) but no ‘ked /
kid’.The note to HtsBriefe 1857 has some further ‘instances’, for which see OTWF note
351 (and Röhborn’s note to HTs VIII 939 for küzäd).
422 Cf. the facsimile; the passage is missing in the parallel Sängim ms.
MORPHOLOGY 239
stop after /l n r/ and a (voiced or lenis) fricative in all other cases; see
section 2.409.
The 2nd person variants with /g/ are found especially in the Orkhon
inscriptions, e.g. öl-tüg ‘you died’ in KT S6. In the 2 nd person plural
Orkhon Turkic may have had only -dXgXz, with forms such as bardïgïz
and ärtigiz in the KT inscription.423 While the ending -dI is found to be
used from the earliest texts on also with plural subjects, we find -dIlAr
at least with human plural subjects, in not very late texts such as HTs,
e.g. VIII 56-73, where three teachers, alternatively referred to as -./ 01- ,
as 2354647 ïlar or as 8:9;=<?>@BA@AC ïlar, are associated with actions
referred to as tutmïš ärdilär, käd boltïlar, yörüg kïltïlar and yaddïlar.
The 2nd person plural can also add +lAr, e.g. in küzädmädiD EGFHIJ
(MaitH XXI p.33 r6). -mAdXK LNM itself is used for the polite singular as
well; this explains why there is no +lAr variant in the 1st person plural.
423 See section 3.122 for variation in the 2nd person plural possessive suffix in general.
In Uygur and Qarakhanid there is the phenomenon that /f ghjikimlonqp&rh nsptikiu`pwvxvxpwysz{h rj| K
and not NK; this is merely a matter of spelling, however, as the front K is used in words
with back vowels as well. bardï} ïz is quoted in Doerfer 1993:1 from Ongin (R4) as a
feature distinguishing the dialect of that inscription from that of KT, but the last syllable
may (according to the Thomsen – Wulff material) not be visible; i.e. this may be a
singular form.
240 CHAPTER THREE
the time. However often his parents asked him, he never gave an
answer’ (ChristManMsFr Man v11); the fused sequence -mIš+kA is,
however, negated as -mAyOk+kA. -mAmIš first turns up in the latest Old
Turkic sources. The suffix -dOk apparently had a low vowel, to judge
by the form ärtmädök attested in TT VIII G 50 in fragmentary context.
On the other hand, however, we find bar-ma-duk+ug in TT VIII A 1.
There is no real evidence in Old Turkic for positive -dOk used
otherwise than as a verbal nominal or in participial function, although
~ `
-299 does supply us with such evidence from the
dialects of “most of the Oguz and some of the Suvars and Kipchak”
(quoted in Tekin 1997: 7). Tekin 1997: 6 quotes “äbkä tägdöküm ‘I
arrived in the camp’” from Ongin R 2 but what can be seen there (and
could be seen when the inscription was discovered) is only tägd[ök]üm.
He also states that Volga Bolgarian and Danube Bolgarian had finite
(positive) -dOk, but that is disproven in Erdal 1993: 76-80 and 1988
respectively. Since there is nothing else, we have to state that Old
Turkic has -dOk as finite verb only if negated, although that may have
been different in Proto-Turkic.
The suffix -yOk expressing the vivid past presumably had a low vowel
and not /U/, because it is spelled thus in TT VIII H 50 and L 18 and 21;
cf. however bulganyu[k] in TT VIII O 9. In this function it appears only
in Buddhist texts; in the 3rd person this always gets the pronoun ol
added to it. There are no runiform examples of -yOk; in Manichæan
sources it is attested only as participle (section 3.283) and only in six
instances (most of them in the late Pothi book). Its function is discussed
in section 3.26; D.M. Nasilov (1966) has dealt with this suffix, giving
numerous Uygur examples and discussing its survival in modern
languages in Siberia; N. Demir recently showed that it survives also in
southern Anatolian dialects.
424 I use this traditional term because the many variants of the form, -Ar, -Ir, -Ur, -yUr
and -r, make it inconvenient to refer to this morpheme in archphonemic manner.
425 We find ogša-yïr in Windg (l.50 of the Zieme edition).
MORPHOLOGY 241
survive very well into Middle and Modern Turkic; it could quite well be
the newer one: -r is more often found in the early attestation of common
forms such as te-r ‘says’ (the only form in Orkhon Turkic, with 9
instances in Tuñ, 3 in KT, 3 in the Ongin inscription; very common in
the IrqB, TT I 44, Mait 51 v10, 4 times in TT VIII E etc.) or yarlïka-r
‘orders; deigns to’ (M III 35,14, TT X 99, more than 30 times in Mait
etc.), tokï-r ‘hits’ ( Mait 110 r10 and 15), oyna-r ‘plays, dances’ (Mait
140 r5), yorï-r ‘walks’ (Mait 89 r17, 173 r7 and 25), ogša-r (HTs III
`t&1 {¡¢N¤£ ¥¦§ ¨m©:ª¨&«¬®¯°¯²±´³³³µ ¶¬·©¸µ:¹©
telä-r, arï-r,
kurï-r, kogša-r, savïkla-r, akla-r, titrä-r, udïkla-r and yarsï-r.426 The
probable direct connection between -mAz (discussed below) and -r also
speaks for the greater antiquity of -r. -yUr might possibly be the result
of syncopation from -yU är-ür; see section 3.251 for the joining of
vowel converbs with är- to express durativity.
After consonants the aorist suffix has the alternants -Ur, -Ir and -Ar,
which alternate according to whether the stem is simple or derived and,
if the latter, with what formative (cf. also section 2.51 above on this):
Most simple stems (both one- and two-syllable ones) have -Ar but a few
have -Ur and some other few (like täg-) have -Ir. Intransitive derived
stems such as the ones formed with -(X)k-, +(X)k-, (onomatopoeic)
+kIr- etc. have -Ar while passive, reflexive and cooperative-reciprocal
stems and stems with the causative suffixes other than -(X)t- have -Ur.
Stems derived with -(X)t- have -Ir in early texts; in later texts this
formative becomes -(I)t- while its converb and aorist vowel changes to
/U/. ögir- ‘to rejoice’ has /A/ as converb and aorist suffix in Manichæan
texts (most of which are older) but usually /U/ in others: The change
may have come about in analogy to its synonym sävin-, with which
ögir- is often used in a biverb; such analogy often happened in biverbs.
The topic of Old Turkic converb and aorist vowels is discussed in detail
in Erdal 1979b; cf. also Erdal 1986.
The negative aorist suffix is -mAz which is, like its positive
counterpart, followed by pronouns referring to the subject. One might
analyse this as -mA-z, taking -z to be another allomorph of -yUr etc.;
this seems to be a viable idea, since the conditioning between the other
allomorphs is not purely phonological either, but is also based on the
morphological profile of the base. One could even make a genetic
connection between -r and -z, since an alternation /r/ ~ /z/ appears also
in other domains of the grammar (discussed above in section 2.36). In
modern Turkic languages one would prefer not to connect the two
426 The form by Tekin 1968 read as ‘yasa-r’ in KT N10 is quite certain to be
conditional ay-sar ‘since he decrees’.
242 CHAPTER THREE
suffixes, since -mAz is stressed whereas other forms negated with -mA-
place stress on the syllable preceding this suffix; but we know nothing
certain about stress in Old Turkic, and stress may have moved forward
secondarily (e.g. in analogy to other verb forms, which stress the last
syllable).
In Qarakhanid Turkic, -mAz appears as -mAs, though /z/ is not
otherwise devoiced in coda position in that dialect. -mAs may have been
a dialect variant: We have e.g. yanmas yer ‘the place of no return’ in M
III nr.16 v 3. There, this is clearly not an instance of the confusion of s
and z, at any rate, as M III nr.16 is an archaic text showing no instances
of voice confusion.427
‘-mA-yUr’ does not exist: Zieme 1991: 415 (footn.113) explains the
two instances where this was thought to appear as the positive aorists
tümä-yür ‘adorns’ and tarma-yur ‘scratches’ respectively. 428
427 An error cannot be excluded; the ms. is (according to Peter Zieme) now lost.
Benzing 1952 is of the opinion that -r, -z and -s are of different origins: He approvingly
quotes Bang’s view connecting -z with the deverbal nominals in -(X)z (dealt with in
OTWF § 3.111) and would like to link -s to the -sXk suffix forming necessitative
participles. While the possibility that -mAz should come from -(X)z cannot be wholly
excluded, the latter proposal seems unacceptable to me, as there is no ‘+Xk’ suffix in
sight. Benzing wanted to link the latter parts of -sXk and -dOk to the particle (O)k and to
+Ik (dealt with in OTWF § 2.11) but that is excluded because of the vowels. Benzing
1980 then proposes reading -sXk as -(A)sXk.
428 Doerfer 1993: 51, 47 still quotes the first form from ETº´»$¼q½t¾ ‘tuymayur’ and the
second form from M III Nr.11v3 as ‘yadmayur’ . The first instance is the only evidence
which he gives for his statement “Negative Konjugation sehr zerstört”.
429 I use this term to cover absolute or relative future meaning, or future tense and
future taxis.
430 E.g. bolu bergä ödläg kälü bergä kut (6095) ‘Fate will support him and blessing
will come upon him’.
MORPHOLOGY 243
431 Cf. however tašgaru üngäy täg män (MaitH XIII 4v7) ‘it looks as if I will go out’.
432 Tekin 1968: 73 thought that -óô1õ I was contracted from -mA-gA+öm÷ . This is
unlikely because no such contractions took place at this early stage, although AgU > A
may have occurred in nälük ‚to what purpose‘ (DLT fol. 197 and elsewhere; possibly <
nä+gü+lük) and in two other very late lexemes. Moreover, the deverbal noun in -gA
(never negated in Old Turkic) is always agentive and would not have needed the suffix
+ö÷ to make it so.
433 Another possibility is that -øùXöm÷ is a contraction from *-úû1ü:ýmþ < *-úûXü$û1ýþ , the
second vowel then getting syncopated through the movement of the accent to the
syllable before -mA-.
244 CHAPTER THREE
The imminent future form in -gAlIr (see section 3.26 for finite, section
3.285 for infinite use) does not seem to have turned up in inscriptional
or in Manichæan sources, speaking for relatively la te appearance. It
might come from *-gAlI ärür, the aorist of the very rare analytical
phrase in -gAlI är- (section 3.251). Instances in ZiemeTexterg
(Manichæan script) and QB (Arabic script) show that the suffix had /g/
and not /k/. Gabain 1974 § 259 with n.41 and Tezcan (BT III 77 with
n.) spell it with /k/ because they think it resulted from a contraction
with
the
!verb
#"$&%!forms
'()$*+kal-ïr and
,-.$
0/1 käl-ir.
3244 This
*0567
8: 9<;:is,*+=3I>think, less
@?<ACBED< ?F'
GIlikely
H than my
110 (p. 433).
A verb phrase can, beside a fully lexical verbal kernel, include another
verb, which can be grammatical to varying degrees. See section 4.23 for
complex verb phrases in which none of the verbs is purely grammatical;
the ‘other verbs’ in the sections of 3.25 can have partly grammatical,
MORPHOLOGY 245
partly lexical meaning. When only one of the verbs in a verb phrase is
lexical to any degree, the construction is called ‘analytical’; e.g. öJKLM
sözlädi ärdi (Abhi B 82b4) ‘He had said before ...’. There are even
triple sequencess such as kälmiš ärdi ärsär (HtsTug V 79,25) ‘even
though ... had come’ or N5O&PRQTS6N5UWV X)Y>V,Z4[
\TS6]4Q[V^V`_a.QT]4Q[VQSbcQ
PRQTSV d (Abhi
B 56a10) ‘the sense of sight not being an analysing or searching one’.
The second (and third, if any) verbal component of an analytical verb
phrase is grammatical: Such complex verb phrases are necessary for
expressing categories such as tense, taxis, , actionality, intention,
ability, version, status, epistemic and deontic mood or for undergoing
subordination in conditional or converb clauses. These contents are
discussed in the following sections.
Analytical verb phrases expresing actionality, intention, ability or
version (discussed in section 3.25) use a variety of verbs, but other
categories are formed by having forms of lexical verbs get followed by
forms of är- ‘to be’. bol- ‘to become’ also appears to express aspect, not
actionality, only when added to perfect participles in -mIš; (see section
3.26). The lexical element always precedes the grammatical element,
although scrambling is otherwise common in all texts. Another optional
(possibly clitic) final member of a verb phrase is a subject pronoun.434
Such sequences can be broken apart only by the particles Ok (e.g. ozmïš
ok ärür; bermäz ök ärsär) and mU. The particle idi, which precedes
negative words to stress their negativity, can also be part of the verb
phrase. When the lexical part of these phrases is one of the forms used
as main predicates of sentences, either of the participle type (-mIš, -yOk
etc.) or such that are used only predicatively (-dI, -gAy), the results
generally come to be members of the tense-aspect system discussed in
section 3.26. When converbs are used as first elements in analytical
constructions, the products always express actionality, intention, ability
or version.
Forms of är- which appear as non-first element in analytical
sequences are the preterite, ärür and ärgäy to serve the expression of
tense and taxis (see section 3.26), ärmiš for the status category (section
3.27), ärdök with possessive suffix to make object clauses, ärip /
ärmätin to turn sentences into adjuncts und ärsär to incorporate them
into conditional sentences or correlative relativization (as in kanyu kiši
kim bo yarokun ärmäk[ig] k(ä)ntü köe \UfV,ZgV@[(SQha.iTS ïmïš ärsär, ol kiši
b(ä)lgüsi antag ärür: (M III nr. 8 VII r2-4) ‘Any person who has
434bän appears as män in this position (though not as independent pronoun) already in
some runiform inscriptions, showing that the pronoun was indeed part of the verb
phrase already at that stage.
246 CHAPTER THREE
planted inside his own heart this existence with light, that person’s
mark is as follows’). If ärmiš, ärdökin, ärip, ärmätin and ärsär were to
be replaced by -mIš, -dOk+, -(X)p, -mAtIn and -sAr forms of the lexical
verbs, these verb phrases would lose the possibility to express aspect.
When a verb phrase consists of two verbs, categories can be
distributed among them in various ways. With the pluperfect consisting
of two -d+ forms, the first is the one inflected for ‘person’; this is what
we have in the first part of the following sentence: kayu üdün män beš
törlüg ulug tülüg435 kördüm ärti, antada bärü ... olorgalï küsäyür ärtim
(MaitH XI 4v18) ‘When I had seen the five sorts of great dreams, from
that time on was I wishing to sit ...’. In the second analytical phrase of
the quoted sentence, it is the preterite form which is marked for person,
as that is morphological and does not demand a pronoun. The ‘number’
category can have it both ways: In jkTlm@noklm opl5qr#s`o tu4vck5wxkr#sfmzy.kr (TT
VI 131) ‘They were not wont to believe in demons’ and in several
additional sentences following this one or in ötgürmiš topolmïš ärdilär
(HTs VIII 55) quoted above it is the auxiliary which has the plural
suffix. In n&{Tul
r amit kïlu yorïrlar ärti (MaitH Y 225) ‘They were
walking about as a spiritual exercise’ or in tägrä tolï tururlar ärti (KP
71,4), however, the lexical verb has the plural. ädgü ö[glis]i436
bolyoklar ärdi appears in U IV D 10, e.g., tavïšganka kälyök ärdilär
three lines further on, in U IV D 13: In most of the sentences quoted,
the subject is explicitly referred to only in a preceding sentence. In
lqr#s|o tTu4n}l5~TTt4yyt&o+C{(mc+C{3{Tu4n
y.{r
T{TrpkTr#sfmzykTr (TT VI 130) ‘There
were truly faithful male and female community members’ plurality is
also expressed by the finite word.437 The TT VI 131 example just
quoted is an example of ‘negation’ getting expressed by the lexical, the
first element. Another distribution of negation would, in principle, also
be possible, as with the politeness auxiliary tägin- in yazokka tüšä
tägin-mä-gäy ärtimiz (KP 8,1) ‘We would not venture to fall to sin’.
The verbal categories for which complex verb phrases are formed can
express tense or taxis, mentioned in the previous section, which localize
the stretch of time during which the event took place with respect to the
435 Lacunas of the passage are here not marked as such as it is attested also in the
parallel Sängim ms. (BT IX p.106).
436 Thus following UW 404a.
437 ärti can serve as the past tense of bar ‘there is’; here, however, the two are
combined.
MORPHOLOGY 247
438 Anderson 2002, who deals with the categories described in this section, also posits
a category of “orientation” among them, with two members expressing motion away
from and towards the speaker: a translocative in bar- ‘to go’, as in äsri amga yalïm
kayaka ünüp barmïš ‘A dappled wild goat went up a steep cliff’ (IrqB) and a cislocative
in käl- ‘to come’, as in süt akïp kälti ‘milk came flowing out’ (Suv 621,15). # - ‘to fly
(off)’ and +# - ‘to fly off’, both used as euphemisms for ‘dying’, are another
example for the (not purely spatial) content of this opposition.
439 KP 1,5 has been read as kuš kuzgun sukar yorïyur, sansïz tümän özlüg ölürür and
translated as ‘Birds pick (the ground), killing innumerable creatures’. Birds do, of
248 CHAPTER THREE
3.251. Actionality
This category deals with the development and change of the event in
the course of time. In Old Turkic, actionality is mostly expressed by
partly grammaticalised auxiliary verbs; there are, however, also other
means to express it. The content of the passive formative -sXk- (see
OTWF section 7.41), e.g., differs from that of the more common
passive formative -(X)l- in actionality, among other things: tutsuk- is ‘to
get caught’, e.g., whereas tutul- is ‘to be held’ or ‘to be caught’; the
-sXk- form is marked as inchoative. The task of some marginal deverbal
verb formatives consisted of expressing actionality; thus the formative
-gIr- mainly attested in the DLT and documented in OTWF 539-540 is
added to both transitive and intransitive verbs and gives the meaning ‘to
be about to carry out the action denoted by the base verb’. The aorist
can, beside expressing continuous aspect and continuous action, also
express repeated action, as körür in balïk taštïn tarïg ïlarag körür ärti
‘(in his outings from the palace) he used to see the farmers outside the
town’ (KP 1,3) or sözläyür in the following passage: birök özi ä
kïlmagu täg nä nägü iš išlägäli ugrasar ”...” tep sözläyür ärdi ‘if,
however, she intended to do something which she wasn’t supposed to
do, she would say ”...” (U III 54,15). Similarly ölürür in yol yorïda ï
yal 5 .¡¢6£ ï¤ ¥T¦^§,¨ª©«¬&«T ïn kunup karmalap özlärin ölürür ärtimiz
(MaitH XX 13r18) ‘We used to rob the possessions of travellers and
kill them’.
course, have the habit of walking about the freshly cultivated earth when looking for
worms and the like but, since the context does not make one expect their walking about
to get thematized, yorïyur might be transitory towards the auxiliary use of yorï-. Peter
Zieme has, on the other hand, proposed reading yulïyur ‘plucks’ instead of this word;
this is perfectly possible, as l-diacritics are often forgotten by scribes.
440 A single Orkhon Turkic instance of the incorporation of a lexical converb with the
auxiliary ïd- is mentioned below.
MORPHOLOGY 249
In Uygur the auxiliaries alk-, bar-, bol-, är-, ïd-, kal-, käl-, tur-, tut-,
tükät- and yorï- express actionality. This may not be a complete list, as
it is often difficult to ascertain whether a verb is fully lexical or an
auxiliary; the distinction between these two can be fuzzy to some
degree. Take yavašïm birlä yakïšïpan adrïlmalïm ... közi karam birlä ...
külüšügin441 oloralïm (M II 8,20). This could mean ‘Let’s draw close,
me and my gentle one, and never separate; may my black-eyed one and
me sit and laugh in company’, taking olor - to be lexical; or, if olor- is
understood as an actionality auxiliary, it could mean ‘may we keep
laughing together’. The translation of T.Tekin 1968: 290 for türk bilgä
xagan türk sir bodunug, oguz bodunug igidü olorur (Tuñ 62) takes
olor- to signify ‘to rule’ (as it clearly sometimes does): “Turkish Bilgä
Kagan is (now) ruling, taking care of the Turkish Sir people and the
Oguz people”. Anderson 2002 (following Kondrat’ev 1981: 117), on
the other hand, takes the verb olur- (as he writes it) of this passage to be
®¯°±+®3²´³,µ¶x®°T·^³¸³.®±W¹»º5¼¾½6³@¿³¸.®±À½7¶ÁT²´¶ÁÂ&¶xÃÂ&°±!½À³@ÁÄÅÇÆCÈFÉ ÊË.Ì ÍTÎÏÐÒÑ4Ì4Ó!Ô
ÕÀÖ×
Tarduš bodunug eti ayu olortï, by Tekin rendered as “... reigned
ruling and governing the Tarduš people”. Both interpretations a re
perfectly possible but we follow Tekin if no unambiguous Old Turkic
examples for an auxiliary olor- are brought into the discussion.
Verbs which by lexical meaning denote a stage in the development of
an event, e.g. bašla- in nomlagalï bašla- (HTs III 815) ‘to start to
preach’, should not be called auxiliaries: They do not create members in
a grammatical category. See section 4.23 for such constructions. The
Middle Turkic QisØ asØ u ’l -ÙÚÛIÜ`Ý Þ ßIà^á7â5á -U bašla- to denote the beginning
of an action.
The most common construction for expressing actionality is for the
auxiliary to govern a converb form of the lexical verb. The most
common converb is here the vowel converb; all auxiliaries which can
govern -gAlI forms are found to govern also -(X)p forms and vowel
converbs, and most auxiliaries governing -(X)p forms are found to
govern vowel converbs as well. When a particular auxiliary was used in
different construction the meaning did not always change, but tur- ‘to
get up; to stand’ has two quite distinct actional meanings: The meaning
of -gAlI tur-, which describes what is about to take place, emanates
from ‘getting up’; on the other hand the meanings of tur- with the
vowel converb, with the -(X)p form and with the -mIš and aorist
441The facs. shows that a reading külüšüpän as converb cannot be excluded; there is
no other instances of külüš-üg or külüš-ük and such a derivate from an -(X)š- verb
would be very much of a rarity.
250 CHAPTER THREE
442 The use of tur- as copula, described in section 3.29, also comes from this stative
meaning (note that ‘stative’ com es from Latin stare ‘to stand’) .
MORPHOLOGY 251
1023) ‘we are engaged in translating the ACB8DEGFCH8D ’. All examples I have
come across describe an agentive activity, not a state or a process.443
The sequence -(X)p är- appears to convey post-terminal meaning, e.g.:
ol azïI J8KMLONPQNPRSP8QCJTP(KMU*VXWJTYZJTPN\[\P6]^Y_CW8_6`abLcYZYN#deJTYfJ8K_W8_g`%h[iKMU_*YJ8K
az birlä katalur. (M I 16,6; Manichaean) ‘That lust of yours, which is
mingled with food and drink from outside, enters the body and mingles
with internal lust’. Other instances for the sequence -(X)p är- are
mentioned in §26 of the entry for är- in UW 405b-406a; an instance
with -mAtIn, the negative counterpart of the vowel converb and of
-(X)p, can be found in §27.444
yorï- ‘to walk’ denotes ongoing action when used as an auxiliary, e.g.:
kamag on bölök šastr yaratdï; amtï barUPZJkjlW8_CWma<h8_ ïyur (HTs V 1 b
5) ‘He composed a nCopNG_*P of all in all ten chapters; at present he is busy
elaborating on it all’; anta ymä sansïz tümän suvdakï tïnlïglar buza
butarlayu yorïyurlar sorarlar tikärlär sanUP rlar (Mait 183v24) ‘There,
again, innumerable myriads of water creatures are busy destroying them
and tearing them to pieces and they suck them out, sting them and
pierce them’. The use of yorï- as auxiliary has to be distinguished not
only from the meaning ‘to walk’ but also from the meaning ‘to live’ or
‘to lead a certain way of life’ and from its use as copula (section 3.29).
The instance tamudïn kurtulup amtï bo käntü uvut yenlärin äl'KR'[Y_4KR'NY
yüdä örtänü yala yorïyurlar (Mait 75v20), e.g., could have the verb
yorï- either as auxiliary or in the more literal meaning of ‘walking
about’ or just ‘existing’. kayusï mulPq'r-Pq ïnu oynayu külä yorïyurlar
(Mait 89r17) could also describe the gods’ way of life and not just their
current behaviour, although the sentence is an utterance by somebody
who just happens to meet them: He might be extrapolating from his
observation. The difference between är- and yorï- as auxiliaries with
the vowel converb may be that the activity is current with är-, a way of
life with yorï-. A further instance governing the aorist of the lexical
verb is quoted above in this section. Usually, yorï- governs the vowel
converb, this actional phrase leading to the present form in the Oguz
languages.
443 For -u är- cf. also Gabain’s n. to l.1870 of her edition of HTs VII and Röhrborn’s
n. to l.2035 of his edition of the same HTs book. The durative participle suffix -AgAn,
which exists in a number of modern Turkic languages, can possibly be the result of a
contraction of -A är-kän; this would assume the existence of a -gAn participle from är-
beside the petrified conjunction ärkän.
444 ärmiš in biz[i s ä] tapïngu yüküngü ärdini berüp ärmiš (U I 8) ‘It turns out that he
has given us a jewel to worship’ is, according to UW 392, to be read as turmïš. -gAlIr,
mentioned in §27 of the är- entry, is not a converb, as stated there, but a participle.
MORPHOLOGY 253
kal- is used as auxiliary with vowel and -(X)p converbs to express that
the action described is the end stage of a process: amtï ärtip kalïr ärki
sän (TT II,2 7) can perhaps be freely translated as ‚Now it looks like
things will soon be over with you‘. Similar in content we find IrqB 17:
özlük at ö ' ïp o ug\u8CuzT'wy ïš ‘A royal horse came to a
standstill in a desert, exhausted and wilting’. The DLT (fol.16) says that
the sequence -gAlI kal- denotes “that the action was about to be
performed but has not yet taken place” and gives the following
examples: ol turgalï kaldï ‘He was about to stand up’; ol bargalï kaldï
‘He was about to go but had not yet gone’. This is an aspectual content,
unlike that of the QB’s (and later) yaz-, which expresses the observation
that somebody missed the carrying out of an intended act.
445 In ketä bardï kündä üzüldi kü 6 (QB 247) ‘His power waned and was broken in a
day’, bar - seems to appear in its lexical use and not as auxiliary.
254 CHAPTER THREE
turur is attested also with participial forms of the verb; e.g. with -mIš:
/01/"23547680)9;:=<
ï)g umugsuz ïnagsïz bo tïnlïglar montag ämgäklig [a> un]da
tüšmiš tururlar (U II 4,8) ‘these poor hopeless creatures had fallen into
such an (existence) of suffering’. This ‘historical present’ clearly
describes a resultative state, the situation in which the creatures find
themselves after their fall. An early instance with an aorist, yaylayur
turur ‘spends the summer’, is quoted above; it refers to a continuing
state. Similarly aka enilär mä barïp körüp kïlm(a)z turur (UigBrieffr C
10-11) ‘The elder and younger brothers have not been coming to see us
either.’
01/A@ 01/ABDCFE
:G82:H80
In tä? ïrkïnlarïn tä? ïn alkamïš törütmiš ol, kim ol
/"2NMGOLCPB0*MHBQ
örginni?JILK ïn täg ... bolup tururlar (BT V 175) ‘He has
created446 the divine maidens and divine youths, who have become as
the heart and center ... of that throne’ the sequen ce -(X)p turur is
unlikely to be describing an ongoing process; rather, this must be a
present perfect, as in a number of modern languages: bol- ‘to become’
is a final-transformative verb in that one is the new thing just after one
has finished becoming it.447
446 See the n. to the passage for the unusual use of alka-, apparently copied from
Iranian.
447 Not all instances of the sequence -(X)p tur- need have tur- as auxiliary: The
sentence keR SLTVU"W XZY\[]Y\^$XW _1Ua`bW YWcedgfhW i\jLW
c]khUml]Ynk=ceYSDc*k=cpo ïp turur ärdi (U IVB 55), e.g.,
probably signifies ‘On her broad chest her two breasts were standing out exceptionally
harmoniously’ with tur- in lexical rather than grammatical use. The sequence aorist +
ärdi is, however, an instance of an analytical verb phrase.
256 CHAPTER THREE
We finally turn to the notion that the action referred to by the lexical
verb has been completed. This is most commonly expressed by tükät-
‘to finish (tr.)’ as auxiliary governing the vowel conver b: bilgülükin
¨
ukgulukïn ornatu tükätip temin ök bulu«z¬ ï«® ¯*]¬ ¬;°
° ïlar (HTs VIII
72) ‘They finished determining how they (i.e. the teachings, accusative)
were to be understood and then immediately spread them to all four
¦ ¦© ¦ ¦±²¦© ¦
directions’ or ® ® ¯ ®L³´§µ£ tükätti (HTs VII 2097) ‘My
powers have waned completely’. Note that kävil- is intransitive: The
auxiliary is in any case tükät-, not tükä- ‘to finish (intr.)’. Other
examples for the sequence are ärtürü tükät- ¶·¹¸ªº¼»*½¾¿ÀÁn¾ yarlïkayu
tükät- (HTs V 13 b 27), körü tükätip (HTs V 1 b 13), kïlu tükät- (HTs V
7 b 11), ölürü tükät- (Suv 22,13) and yorïtu tükät- ÂÃ
Ä Å ÆbÇAÈ;É
ÉÊË
In some cases there appears to have taken place a semantic shift from
‘completely’ to ‘already’: kïlu tükätmiš agïr ayïg kïlïnÌLÍHÎÏ ïm
(SuvSündenbek 75) is ‘the gravely evil deeds which I have already
carried out’; similarly öÐÏ]ÑÓÒÍHÔÏ*ÔÖÕ)Ô×LÑÕGØ¡ÙmÚ,Õ ïnlïglar elsewhere in Suv
MORPHOLOGY 257
-110) the two actional verbs alk- and tükät- are used in
parallel manner. Similarly in känt tägräki bodunug bukunug ölürgäli
alkïp muna amtï balïk iñô¡ òô
& ô
(TT X 52) ‘He is now through
with killing the population in the town’s suburbs and just about to enter
inside the city’, which shows two auxilaries with -gAlI, one denoting
completed action, the other action just about to start. Cf. also UW 95a,
entry alk-, §3.
The auxiliary ïd- ‘to send off; set free’ refers to actions ÷ carried
øout
completely, as oplayu tägip * ðõñDð ïdïp topulu ünti
attacked head on, routed (* ðõñ -, them) in a whirlwind (ïd-), pierced
(their rows) and emerged.’ In ïñ ïnï idmiš449 ‘lost (trans.) completely’
(O F2, Orkhon Turkic). the converb suffix (if read correctly) adapted
itself to the vowel of the auxiliary: The sequence seems to have already
started its way towards morphologization, which we find completed in
a number of modern Turkic languages including Turkmen (with the
whole verb paradigm) and Khaladj (onlz in the imperative). Though the
auxiliary exists also in Uygur, e.g. unïtu ïd- (Xw 14) ‘to forget
completely’, Uygur does not appear to have adapted the converb vowel
to
"!$this
#&%'auxiliary’s
(*)+,.-/0stem.
12,4351768Nor
,:9<does;>=@?Bthis DA;>=3
FHGin;I,:-e J4ð,4õ3K
AC6;-Ehappen ñDð 217ïdïp
68,L;>-Mtupulu
-E/NAPOQ(Rünti
?S=83
emerged (on the other side)’.
A ms. which must be late as it has the Mongol loan TUWVXVYUXZ < [
U \^] _W`
(see the end of § 2.404) on l.72 shows the sequence -(X)p ïd-: maytri
burxannïacbY]de ïgïn bitip ïdtïmïz clearly signifies ‘We have fully written
down Buddha Maitreya’s pronouncement’, not ‘we have written and
sent off ...’.
3.252. Intention
The verbs ugra- and kör- are used for expressing that the subject
intends to carry out the action denoted by the lexical verb, whereas
kïlïn- expresses physical preparation. While ugra- just states that there
is an intention on the part of the speaker, kör- ‘to see, to look’ expresses
a conscious intentness towards carrying out the action described in the
lexical verb: katïg yanï kura kördüm (DLT fol.541) ‘I tried to string the
rigid bow’. This meaning is attested already in the Orkhon inscriptions:
buklm ïp kagan yälü kör temiš (Tuñ 26) ‘The kagan reportedly got
worried and said ‘See to it that you ride fast!’; saklanu körgil (TT X
426) ‘Make sure that you take care!’ is an Uygur example. With ugra-
we have, e.g., nä nägü iš išlägäli ugrasar (U III 54,15) ‘if she intended
to commit something’; cf. U III 11,15 2. What the meaning of kïl- in aka
enilär mä barïp körüp kïlm(a)z turur (UigBrieffr C 10-11) ‘The elder
and younger brothers have not been coming to see us either’ might be is
not clear; by the context one might think that it means ‘to make a small
effort towards an aim’.
3.253. Ability
The verb u- expresses the subject’s ability to carry out the action
denoted by the base verb. In early texts, u- is sometimes used as a
lexical verb: otsuz suvsuz kaltï uyïn ‘How should I manage without
grass or water?’ (IrqB 45); n4opqomqo>psrLtWuvo wp
xXyWzr|{4}Yl~BxXp ‘How will I
manage if I leave you?’ (U III 48,11) is rather similar in content. bo yer
üzä
näklXpXm
lW}u"Ix
NrLz~Yx
No|lX ïš yok kim ol umasar; š(ï)mnu
rYzyNokxr opug ugay (M II 5,10-11) ‘There is no such trick and magic
in this world as he would not be capable of; with the devil’s support he
will be capable of everything’. Beside that there are two petrified forms,
u-sar ‘if possible’ (e.g. in Tuñ 11) and u-yur ‘capable person’ (e.g. in U
III 5,13).
In its auxiliary use, u- always accompanies converb forms of verbs.
Most commonly, u- follows the vowel converb of the main verb;
already so in Orkhon Turkic: elik in ... käm artatï uday ï ärti ‘who could
have corrupted your realm?’ (BQ 19). The converb vowel of the main
verb changes to -U in most post-inscritional texts (unless it has this
shape already), being involved in a process of morphologization
developing in the course of the history of Old Turkic; see Erdal 1979
and 1979b; see section 2.413 above). The two words (the lexical
converb and the finite verb of inability) were not yet fused in most of
early Uygur, as the particle ymä could get between them; e.g. ölü ymä
umaz biz (MaitH XX 14r17) ‘Yet we are unable to die’. They are,
MORPHOLOGY 259
450 Assuming that alkumaz (325) really signifes ‘He is unable to destroy’ and alumadï
(86) ‘he was unable to take’; the contexts of both words are completely destroyed.
451 Cf. körgäli umazlar anï Ã¦Ä äri ÃÅ Æ ‘They are unable to see its depth’ above.
260 CHAPTER THREE
kalï yok Ç ïgay / kïlsa küÇWÈÉËÊXÌXÍÎÏÐ$ÏXÉ ï tok bay (fol.550) ‘One cannot
make somebody satiated and rich by force if he has a poor man’s heart’.
RabÑ Ò Ó ÔÖÕ8×NØÚÙ7Õ8ÛÜØQ×SÝÞÛàßWáâqØÙ7ãä8ßÙåIáâçæèXáXßSäXÝÞÛ:âÙ2Û4èçå>âé8ßSÕqå>âXê
Ûëå>Ù"ØQßSÕ
1926: 79).
The QB, the other great Qarakhanid text, has -U bil-: bägig kulda
adra bilür mü özüì (4836) ‘Can you distinguish between lord and
servant (after they die)?’; köndrü bilmäz yorïk (2077) ‘He is unable to
correct his behaviour’.
The -(X)p gerund is much less common with u-; we have it e.g. in
tutup ugay (Mait Taf 129 v21 in fragmentary context) or in özümnüì
bašgarïp umayokum ärür íîEïXðBñXòóõô4ñ
öIñ÷Xø8ñùÖ÷
úXûöü7ýEø8þ4ÿBü>ù Cûü Xø 2óSù
p.76) ‘this is a case of my being unable to suceed’.
"!$#
%&
'
(&) *+,-
-gU täg ärmäz is another construction expressing impossibility, e.g. in
(TT II,1 55) ‘our joy is quite
indescribable’. If the phrase is to express for whom the action referred
3.254. Version
The Old Turkic category of ‘version’ specifies either the subject itself
or another entity as the beneficiary of the action referred to in the
sentence. The object version or benefactive is in Old Turkic expressed
MORPHOLOGY 261
hiy
the QB, sözläyü ber- in DKPAMPb 57. Similarly in a source from the
^a^2k`hy0hm+n@aor q&pa
Mongol period (details mentioned in footn. 186): tört yï ïn bo nom
ärdinig ke (49-51): ‘Be so nice as to spread this
k}+q&]htvtct$k'}a
doctrine jewel in all four directions’. körtgürü bergäy ärti kim köni
ïzunlar ärti ‘Would he graciously show ..., so that they
]hIi
hq
would take the right road’ is from an early text, TT VI 237. In the
]i
hP
h)d ]h
mn@a^a,]
phe])l+q&h,k'l
Manichæan corpus we have e.g. ïn ï suv ï ïga
a @r}a,sGl&h&p a@rvi
pm+n8p a@rvi
p
ïn yerdä a
kapagïn a
]hgm+n@a"r
-ma xroštag tä
(M I 13,9-12) ‘Just as water is useful in opening the
gate of plants in the earth, quite in the same way the god Hroshtag
The sentences
rcercsp+]rcstctvt
^]
^emp r d^sTrve
graciously opened the gate of the Fivefold God to the god Ohrmizd’.
452 tikä berti (E28,7) ‘My
younger and elder brothers built this memorial for me because of ...’
e
and balbal kïlu bertim (BQ S7) ‘I erected a stele for (him)’ are both
fpexhy+a,hTfp+]pk'}ahxm+n@ayr
from runiform inscriptions. Qarakhanid use is identical: nägü kïlmïšï ï
(QB 797) ‘You explained to me your actions
clearly and in detail’. bolu berdi ävrän (QB 1642) is by Dankoff
translated as ‘The firmament smiled upon him’; bolu ber- just means
‘to be in somebody’s favour’.
In the sentence o;T T
ïntar Šalikä bitigäli aydïmïz, “bašlap beri
tep ‘We asked our brother Sïntar Šali to write (it), saying ‘do us a
favour and start’ (Mait colophon edited by Laut in Ölmez &
Raschmann 2002: 133) ber- governs the -(X)p converb and not the
vowel converb. Laut translates the direct speech as “Fang gleich an!”,
452 The second vowel is not explicit but is assumed to be there because it is explicit in
an instance in the Ongin inscription.
262 CHAPTER THREE
This section deals with the temporal structuring given by the speaker
either to events within themselves (‘aspect’) or with respect to other
events referred to (‘taxis’) or with respect to the speaker or writer’s
moment of speaking or writing (‘tense’). All finite indicative verb
phrases are, first of all, characterised for aspect and taxis. To express
tense and / or taxis, they can be transposed into a (relative) future by the
addition of ärgäy and into a (relative) past by the addition of the forms
of the preterite, ärtim etc. Thus e.g. an event referred to by a final-
transformative verb (‘to have somebody get mounted’) p resented not as
internally structured but looked at from its final point, in past taxis and
past tense: &¦"v§
¨© xª«8¦8ª§0« ,¬
ï ärti ‘he (the king) had had (him, his son)
mounted for recreation’ (KP 1,1). The following passage (Wettkampf
26-31) recounts one and the same (iterative) event in two versions
differing in aspect: ol ödün yagï w(o)rm(ï)zt tegin bo tört sav agzïnta
tutdï; kanta barsar kälsär kirsär tašïksar olorsar tursar bo tört sav
ag(ï)zda tutar ärti ‘Then the valiant prince Wormïzt kept repeating
MORPHOLOGY 263
-Ur etc. and -mAz usually express imperfective aspect. It is to make this
´µ¶&µ
aspect explicit that we find e.g. šala sögüt tsip sögütkä oxšar ärip ‘the
tree is similar to the oak and ...’ instead of ‘oxšap’ in HTs III 212,
or tïnlïglar anïlayu ok turur ärip sansarlïg kök titigdä (Abhi A 41b5)
‘creatures remaining in that way in the green mud of sam · ¸¹º,»
’ instead
of ‘turup’. By itself, the aorist often refers to the time of speech or
writing; just as often, however, it is timeless, as in inscriptional yerimin
¸@¼½
¼¾¼¿ÁÀ)¿»ºÃÀ)ÄÅƺÈÇÆ¿
‘I alternately settle and migrate in my
domain’. The aorist – the form ornanmaz in the following example –
can also describe a state of affairs which started out at some point in the
264 CHAPTER THREE
453 The aorist has of course become the normal future tense in many modern Turkic
languages, new forms having been created to describe events going on at the moment of
speaking or during the point of time being referred to. This process did not, however, as
yet take place in Old Turkic, where the -Ar form is a real ‘aorist’ not yet seriously
challenged by more focussed present forms such as -yU turur
MORPHOLOGY 265
oglanï sävär
(Pothi 98-99) ‘they all loved you as children love their
mother’ or
!#"%$&('*) +%,-./.00
1,2$%345'6)78+%)9,
ävrän yïlan [kälti]lär ‘Well, one day I was eating bread and food on
this mountain (and) three dragons came towards (me)’ (DreiPrinz 42).
There are many other examples in UW 400b-401a, § 17b of the entry
on är-. The sequence is common already in Orkhon Turkic, as köl tegin
bir kïrk yašayur ärti ‘K.T. was 31’ (KT), 2:,$&1;!<#"
=#>)0
ärti ‘The Türk people were subject to China’ (Tuñ), atïg ïka bayur
ärtimiz ‘we used to tie the horses to trees’ (Tuñ) and the like.
In mitri burxan kälgäy tepän küdügli ärti? @A!, (M II 6,10) ‘You have
been waiting for the prophet Mithra to arrive’ we have the participle in
-(X)glI with the preterite form of the copula; this rare instance is
presumably synonymous with the aorist construction.
The constative preterite (i.e. the one not explicitly marked as evidential)
is expressed by members of the paradigm -dXm etc.; used by itself, this
form normally expresses anteriority relative to the moment of speaking
or writing. The form is exceedingly common; Zieme 1969: 148
determined that its frequency in his corpus compared to that of -mIš is
roughly 10 : 1. The simple constative preterite serves the narrative
mode, as even processes which obviously took some time can be
presented as point events: otuz yašïma beš balïk tapa sülädim (BQ E28)
‘In my 30th year of life I campaigned against Beš Balïk’. In türk bodun
#B/1$ ïmadïm küntüz olormadïm ‘For (the sake of) the Turk nation
I did not sleep at night, nor did I rest in daytime’ (BQ E22) there is
(metaphorical) reference even to repeated situations. Zieme 1969: 148-9
lists numerous Manichæan example s for the constative preterite.
When a verbal lexeme denotes a process, its preterite can express the
state reached in its culmination. Thus with the verb <
- ‘to become
hungry’ 454 e.g. in BT XIII 2,36: “ay baba, yemiš [ber bizi? 2+CD
=$ ïmïz
ikägü” tep [tedil är ‘“Oh dear, [give us] food, we are both hungry” they
said’. Similarly with indirective status: <,
A!, ïmnï? #2 ï a
ïš
‘My dear little camel colts have evidently gotten hungry’ (BT XIII
2,39).
In the following example the -d+ form refers to the future, presented
as something which has ‘practically’ already taken place, to signal a
clear intention (in fact a lie; the speaker intends to do something quite
different): azkya ö? E
F ïyu turzunlar; män una basa yetdim (Suv
615,14) ‘Please walk on a bit; I will have reached you in a moment!’.
454 It had a long vowel, unlike the verb G0H - signifying ‘to open’. For the semantics cf.
Turkish I0JLK M -; I0JLK MONPK Q ‘I am hungry’.
266 CHAPTER THREE
for the proposal. 38!7 #¡¢, ïnta tugyok män (Pañc 47) ‘I have
been born a fox’ thinks th e fox, going on to reflect on what his nature
enables him to do about the situation he is confronted with, as distinct
from what other animals can do: The birth evidently did not take place
in the immediate past, nor does it need to be asserted, but it is relevant
for the matter at hand. The sentence “bulyok mu ärki burxan kutïn azu
bulmayok mu ärki” tep tegülük (BT I D 195) ‘One should say “Has he
just attained buddhahood, I wonder, or hasn’t he?” proposes to see the
event as a drama of current significance; it is important for showing that
-yOk is compatible with the epistemic particle ärki. nom bitiglärin tälim
yïgyok män (HTs V 59) ‘I have collected his spiritual writings in great
quantity’ says Xuanzang in India when he worries that it will be
difficult to have then all transported to China. amtï sizlär [ …
ä]mgängülük oronka kälyök [s]izlär (Bang & Rachmati, Höllen 14-15)
‘Now you have just arrived at the place of suffering’ is what visitors to
some part of hell are told in a Divine Comedy-like tour. A passage in
TT X 336 further highlights the use of the form by pinning it against the
aorist: körgil amtï yäklär bägi vayšir(a)vani a! ... on kü£ ¤¥!,¦§*
burxan atavakï yäkni¦¨§2 ïnta täprän£*© ª« §!¬¨¨§8«F¨®¨<!D3D , £ ,«
ynä korkmatïn äymänmätin olorur. yavlak sakïn£ ïg atavakï yäk iki
közintin
²/ ³#´ µ¶d· ¸&¹*º&ört
¹#»½yalïn
¼!¾¿ÀÁ¾[ü]ntürüp ¾º%¦Ç§*Ƚ
Â:ÃtÄ&űÀÅ=ƽtä ÉD¯Ä&
¢§ÅÊ
°< ,À<±
˸Ë7#º&ª=ÅÍ
Ìz
ïdu
Î&ÀÀturur
Ä&¹ÐÏ3ÏÏ‘Look
Ä&¹>ÇÑÇOÅ#now,
¹6ÃÅÀ
Ä%Ë3ÆÇOÅ#¼!»DË3Æ/ƽ¾Ò˼Ź*ºÀ(ÂË7¿Æ»Ó¹6Ã\ÃtÄÅ/Ô¼!¹#ÕŽ¾ÂÖÃtÄ&ÅÀÅ*ƽ¾º ×Ø ÙPÚ6Û&Ú*Ü<ÚÝ&Þàßátâ
sitting
ã ß*ä½åæ9there,
çè ÙPÚ6Û&Ú=Ü<without
Ú½Ü<ß#ß*é%âaß*bit
äáèèêof fear
á7æ&ë: ìá7íßorÚ=æ anxiety
ã ìî!Ú*ä½ß(while)
âìêíåäðïthe
átâèevil-thinking
ñàå9ßEò%ßâÚ*æ ã
sending them at the divine Buddha’. The use of this form is discussed
and further documented by D.M. Nasilov 1966.455
The vivid past can be transferred
intothe
past: “ ol är nätäg osoglug
körklüg mäó ôöõ÷8ô øúù,û2ü%ôýDþBÿ û ô =
ô
ïn
!#"$%'&
kädyök ärdi.” (U III 57,8 1) ‘“How were the looks of that man?”
()+*+,.-/021 346587:9;7<>=#?@7A7#?@7$B+5.=C4ED=F@GH=IDJ9LK.??@KIMND$OPQR7S5.=#GTB+U+4K'CN=V<>K'C+WYXZD
gown”’. The vivid past participle has to be used because käd- signifies
‘to put on’ and not ‘to wear’ and because the way the person referred to
was dressed is relevant for current action on the part of those involved
in the story’s drama. The sentence sansardïn ïntïn yogu[]\^`_ ab'cd\^fegih
kïlyok ärdi alku kïlguluk išlärin, alkyok ärdi az ulatï nizvanïlïg
ayïglarïg (U III 88,3-4) ‘He (the arhat Upasena) had just reached the
bank beyond sam j k`l ^!m , had just accomplished everything he had to do
455He also points out that it survives in just this function and meaning in Hakas and
Tuvan; Elisabetta Ragagnin can document it from Dukha, a variety of Tofa spoken in
Mongolia.
268 CHAPTER THREE
and had just done away with lust and with the other evils of passion’
has a similar -yOk ärti phrase. It does not appear in direct speech but
the vivid past content is highly relevant to the point being made:
Upasena lies down and then, suddenly, his brother Sena, reborn as a
snake, comes and stings him, instilling his deadly poison.
Followed by är-miš, the -yOk form gets coupled with indirectivity, as
in Suv 8,10: ïnnoqprtsuprvwyx@z{|}~o`z{6 -a! bizni sini algalï [ïd]tokda
o!
.noo
.wypZwivz]'{`pZwyx@z{Yo
.w@pZw wnIw
.p@zz
w ]#o'o
ï sakïšï takï
p6'#z+Tz'Nz{!Rw Yp@zRz+
no'
no]p ïnlïglarïg ölürtmiškä ol säni
öz alïmn ïlarnïY'{ ïnta anïn sini [alg]alï ïdtïlar. munï sän bilmiš
[kärgäk]” tep tedilär ‘They said the following: “O man! When they
sent us to fetch you they first looked into the judgement register and it
turned out that your time to die hadn’t come yet. They sent (us) to fetch
you only because you have caused the death of so and so many living
beings, and for the sake of those to whom you owe lives”’. The relevant
sentence is marked as a quotation through ärmiš but, since it emanates
from divine prescience, is nevertheless able to refer to the moment of
speaking. Note that all the examples have the 1st or 2nd person as topic,
even when the subject is the 3rd person.
The perfect participle in -mIš usually links with the copula to give verb
phrases with perfect, i.e. post-terminal meaning. -mIš followed by ärür
(or ärmäz) and personal pronouns expresses the ‘normal’ post -terminal
or present perfect. This type of verb phrase should not be confused with
the indirective (for which see section 3.27), which always consists of
-mIš without the aorist; e.g. altï yüz tümän yïl ärtmiš ärür ‘six million
years have passed’; toyïn bolmak küsüšin maoo+ ïn kälmiš ärürlär
(MaitH XVI 1v3) ‘they have approached me with the wish to become
monks’; kün täI{$w+p# ïš ärür. ... odunu+x@o{ ‘The sun has risen ... Wake
(pl.) up!’ (Mai tH XV 11v22); anïn … yeläyü at atamïš ärür (BT I
B(128)) ‘Therefore there have been given fake names’ or män xwentso
öI{zz
z.py#zzo{! ïšta alp adalïg yolta ür kenz+z
Rw !!#z!wixZw
kämlig bolmïš ärür män (HTs VII 1035) ‘As I suffered hardship on the
hard and dangerous road when I, Xuanzang once went to India, I have
become sickly’. In the following question and answer, the question
consists of a -mIš form while the answer has -mIš ärür: nägüniTn'w
.p@z
bo agulug yïlanlar bo montag körksüz a
.p@odp ïšlar? otgurak uktï:
övkä nïzvanï künIw
.p@z
.p@op# ïš ärürlär (MaitH Y 174-6) ‘Due to
what causes have these poisonous snakes been born into such an ugly
existence? He understood it clearly: They have been born into it due to
the vice of anger.’ tugmïšlar in the question appears to expect an
MORPHOLOGY 269
456
The editors mistakenly ‘emend’ the -ä8åYætç form to è éÐêãë'ì í`îEê`ï`êð~ìãñ .
457I do not think this refers to ‘step mothers’ as Tekin would have it; with the
possessive suffixes on mothers, elder sisters etc. the prince probably refers to all
females in his tribe.
MORPHOLOGY 271
which I have come across do not, on the other hand, indicate a point in
time which is in the speaker’s future or a point of time in any
relationship at all to the time of narration, but appear in modal
constructions (see section 5.1). This may be a coicidence, or the task of
inscriptional -ò$óô!õ½ö÷øZù may in Uygur have been filled by the phrase
-gAlIr ärti, of which we quote an instance in the next paragraph.
Uygur uses bol- ‘to become’ (for which see section 3.29) with the
perfect participle in -mIš for presenting the activity as a transition of the
subject into a new state: nomlayu yarlïkamïš boltï ‘he has deigned to
preach’, on törlüg ädgü kïlïn- ïg kïlmïš kärgäk; ögi!#/$&! ï!10"' ï sävin-
tägürmiš bolur (BT XIII 12,036)459 ‘(They) should carry out the ten
types of good deeds; (they) will have given pleasure to their parents’ or
dyan at üzä körkitmiš boltï ‘he has thus presented them by the 234567
name’ (Buddhist); yerni mä karï kišini unïtmïš bolgay sän (Brieffr C11-
12, a letter) ‘(If you do not come to see us but stay where you are), you
458 The ms. (Manichæan writing) has tïdmzdï, which I take to be an error; it might
indicate that the ms. was copied from a source in Uygur script, where Z and ’ can be
similar.
459 The editor pieced this sentence together from mss. B and C; that it should be
attributive to šlok ‘verse’ (as he thinks) seems unlikely to me.
272 CHAPTER THREE
will find that you have forgotten your place and your old family’. 460 In
Manichæan texts there appears to be a resultative present perfect with
bol- in the preterite, where är- in the preterite would have given past
perfect meaning: ymä agïzlanmïš boltï [ulu]8:9 8<;=>?=#>A@&BC DFEGIHJGIKMLCGON*P
boltï agïr sävin?#G,> ‘and it has been pronounced with great joy and
written down with overwhelming happiness’ (M I 25,3 -5); sizlär anï
="?=#>RQ#S ïtmïš boltuT"U V KMW; (M III nr.7 III r5) ‘You have been called for
that reason’.
Let us sum up what we have found to express tense and aspect in finite
indicative non-evidential verb phrases. There are five simple forms:
The imperfect aorist, the preterite, the perfect base -mIš / -mAdOk, the
future -dA?YX / -mA?YX or -gAy and, in Uygur, the recent past -yOk and the
imminent future in -gAlIr. All these are also found transferred into the
past by the preterite of the copula. -mIš is in a special situation as it
needs the pronoun ol or the form ärür for serving as predicative perfect
verb form; without one of these it would be confused with its
homophone expressing evidential past. Perfect -mIš / -mAdOk is also
unique among the simple verb forms in (at least once) getting coupled
with ärgäy to express taxis, and also with boltï, bolur or bolgay to form
verb phrases: -mïš boltï was found to express a present perfect while
-mIš bolur and -mIš bolgay give future perfect meaning.
460 Concerning the translation of kiši as ‘family’ cf. my people ‘my family’ in spoken
English. kiši ‘person’ with possessive suffix apparently also acquired the meaning
‘wife’
Z []\ ^ _ , but that was probably a result of narrowing of the meaning ‘family’; Arabic
‘family’ also came to mean ‘wife’ in many Turkic languages
MORPHOLOGY 273
why we are dealing with the two categories in the same section. We
will first give a short account of status and then of epistemic modality
as we find them realised in Old Turkic sources.
Old Turkic indirective status is normally expressed by the verb form
är-miš added to nominal or verbal sentences. When referring to past
events, however, ärmiš is not added to preterite forms; instead, the
verbal suffix -mIš (also serving the perfect participle, with which
indirect status is related both by function and meaning) replaces the
preterite element -d (+ possessive suffixes). In this, Old Turkic is
similar, to Turkish, e.g., and (with some phonetic changes) to Yakut.
Status is not an obligatory category in Turkic, which means that the use
of a directive form like -dI does not guarantee that the addressee has
actually witnessed the unfolding event. When the content is negative,
-mA-dOk is used in most of Old Turkic instead of -mIš; the use of -mA-
mIš sets in only in rather late Old Turkic. The reasons for this
suppletion may lie in content: Evidentiality is the perhaps oldest
function of the finite -mIš form in this language, and an event which did
not take place can have produced no evidence.
The contents of a message can be indirective in one of three ways, in
Old Turkic as elsewhere: Most prominently in the Old Turkic
documentation, a person or persons different from the speaker may be
the source of the information being transmitted by the speaker, the so-
called ‘reportive’ function; this may refer to matters placed in the past,
the present or the future with respect to the speech act. Secondly, the
speaker may have inferred the content of his utterance from some
evidence forthcoming either during the occurrence of the event or, more
commonly, surviving the event after it was completed. This ‘inferential’
or ‘evidential’ function has often been taken to be the central or at least
the primary one as far as Turkic languages are concerned, as the -mIš
form is also the perfect participle,461 and as the perfect in fact sums up a
wrapped-up event from the vantage point of its contribution to the
present or to some other state following its completion. It is important
to state straightway that Old Turkic -mIš cannot by itself be used as a
finite perfect (or ‘postterminal’, to use Johanson’s clearer term ). Thirdly
there is the ‘mirative’ function of the indirective, where the speaker
does, in fact, himself witness the event he is reporting on, but registers
it with surprise, as his mind was not in any way prepared for this
particular event. This is still indirective, in that reality in a sense belies
the picture which the speaker / writer had made of it for himself, the
461 The identity of the two forms extends to the feature that both are, in Old Turkic,
replaced by -mAdOk when negated.
274 CHAPTER THREE
former abruptly superimposing itself upon the latter. All uses of the
indirective essentially include implicit reference to a foreign view-
point, emanating from the event itself or from some other focus of
consciousness.
In ö`#aYbdcbfegabaYh/iOjkml*nobcfeiIpk*iqhi rYskb`#atiIpJiubv&p*i<cb"wb ötrö sü`"xAjhi,jys
yaroklï karalï kaltï katïlmïš, yerig tä`Aazi {|viqh}ugaYgkMh ïš tepän biltimiz
(Xw 134-6) ‘we know what there was before ..., for what reason god
and demon fought, how light and darkness were mixed (and) who
created the earth and the sky’ the speakers do not (pretend to) have any
postterminal evidence for the contents of the subordinated sentences;
rather, they were told about it by others. Similarly in ... bulmaz ärmiš
tep sav äšidti (Suv 621,20) ‘She heard the news that they were not
finding ...’, where the object proposition is verbal, with present taxis.
Cf. further edärür ärmiš in az ïnaru barm[ïš], bir ögü[r] 462 muygak
kör[miš], ymä muygak sïgunug uvu[tsurdei ~pJi{x&x#clzwbax#a/baYh/iOje"
bälgü körüp ymä ... ïn gdkml*nobc%gYuh ïš (M I 35,7) ‘He went a bit further
and saw a herd of female maral deer. A female maral deer was pursuing
a male for sex. He saw this omen and ... asked as follows:’.
When reportive -mIš appears in questions, the addressee is expected to
give a merely reportive answer, as in bo tïnlïglar nä ayïg kïlïn
kïlmïšlar ärki, kim bo montag a ckMgk { nq, (MaitH XX 1v20) ‘These
creatures, what sins are they said to have committed, that they are born
in such an existence and ...’. Reportive past perfect gives -mIš ärmiš:
g"ckMg{ltjzi,whi,jziqh eg"ath g""gnaYg" gnogkJi{g kMg"higk cq,kMgyn ïnmïš
udunmïš
t/zärmiš
"¡ (tep)
¢tt£¤ ¥ (MaitH
¦t§¨*¦z©/ª<III
«¦ ¬/1b17)
¬"#®¯°#‘I±¯&have
²m³y¦t®´¯µheard
¨F¶q¶q¶q·]¶the following:
The inscriptional sentence ”karlok eši ¸ ä kälmädök” tedi. signifies
‘He said ”The K. are said not to have come for service”’, to judge by its
context. This is an example for the negative counterpart of inferential
-mIš: The Karlok are absent.
In the following example, on the other hand, ärmiš is added to the
predicative verb form to signal mirativity: ¹º»¹"¼ ¹d¼ ½ ¸¾¿ ¹º»¹"¼ ¹d½À&ÁÂ
asïg tusu, an» ¹"¼ ¹Ã½À&ÁÄÂÆÅ&ÇÈÅ ïv kim mäni¸ ½"É ¾ ¼ÊÈM½Ë¹ÌÍÅ ïmta burxanlïg
kün tä¸ Ì ¾ ÈÇ Á¹Ì:½ÌY¼ ¾OÎ (MaitH XI 3v11) ‘Such happiness, such good
favour, such good luck and blessing that – it turns out – sun-like
Buddha is being born in my home’. Similarly, the little mouse which
climbs on top of a pot in HTs VIII 391 and then says: sumer tagka
agtïnmak alp ärmäz ärmiš ‘It turns out it isn’t difficul t to climb mount
Sumeru’. Such surprise can also apply to the 1 st person (as it also can in
462 The editor here writes ökü[š] ‘many’, which seems quite unlikely.
MORPHOLOGY 275
463 The second syllable of this word is quite unclear on the facs. and could in fact be
-gay and not -sar. Q and S on the one hand, Y and R on the other, don’t look all too
different and not much remains in the ms. anyway.
MORPHOLOGY 277
8 M 8
question, as in the following instance of direct speech: ay ulug elig bäg!
464In his edition of this text, Kaya adds a g not found in the ms. to make this into an
accusative form; this is not necessary as Old Turkic proper names used as direct objects
can also be in the nominative case. The ï is part of the name.
278 CHAPTER THREE
and go out’, where I have translated the postposition as ‘it looks as if’.
The sequence -gU täg discussed above also fused in Middle Turkic to
give just this meaning, as does Khakas -gAdAg. The history of -gU täg
can be followed well through Middle Turkic, but by shape the Khakas
form is actually closer to -gA(y) täg than to -gU täg.
The content of the forms in -yOk and -gAlIr (discussed in section
3.26) has some connection to epistemic mood, as they make the
addressee look at events of the recent past and the imminent future
respectively though their relevance for the moment of speaking,
involving a special assertion that they are ‘real’.
is more nouny (and hence belongs more to word formation), the latter
more verblike. This semantic-pragmatic distinction is not always easy
to decide on even in context, and may not always have been meant to be
clear-cut by the speaker/writer in the first place. The fourth criterion is
government: In principle, verbs (including participles) govern direct
and indirect objects while nouns don’t. In fact we find that a large
group of forms consisting of deverbal nominals with the agentive
v"w
denominal suffix + – and a few others as well – do govern objects,
though by far not as extensively as participles. Old Turkic participles
govern objects exactly as finite verbs do.
465 The BT I instance must be late also because a parallel, otherwise identical passage
(D 117-118) has a different formulation with a positive infinitive.
280 CHAPTER THREE
(HTs VIII 64) ‘They became masters at preaching’. In alku ... ayïg tütüš
käriš karïšmakïg amïrtgurda ï ärür (U II 58,51) ‘They (are the ones
who) pacify all quarrel and disagreement’ the infinitive is paral lel to
deverbal nouns and serves as direct object of another verb. Infinitives
can qualify nouns, e.g. in ulïmak sïgtamak ünlär (MaitH XX 1r18)
‘voices of moaning and weeping’ or ölürmäk sakïn ïn (TT IV A 29)
‘with the intention of killing’; in the second instance quoted here,
however, it qualifies another verbal abstract and is in fact its object.
Nominal subjects which accompany this form appear in the genitive
or in the nominative. ol orontakï alku tïnlïglarnï ïg süzük (
¡"¡g
bolmakï bolur; tamuda tugda ï tïnlïglarnï
(U II 38,74- N¢£¢¤2¥§¦¡
¨ª© 4¤«
5) ‘There takes place the perfect purification of all creatures who are in
that place and a stop to creatures destined to be born in hell’ is an
example for the former; another one is ïnï ¬ ¥§ ¬ § 2"®¯ ±° ²³©1¨/(¤2¦
käliš barïš bitig ïdïšmakïn ukïtmak ‘the description of the
correspondence between Xuanzang and the Chinese emperor’, the title
of a chapter in HTs, where Xuanzang is the subject of ïdïšmak. In
´
burxanlarnï ïnlïglarïg ädgü ögli kö ï ï ¢¤f¨)²gµ¥¦¡¨ªµ®ª²6¢¦G¡
² 2g2¡
(
¡¶¢ ¢²
(Warnke 195) ‘because the Buddhas are well-meaningly
considerate of the creatures even more than (their) mothers and fathers’
the infinitive, with genitive subject and accusative object of its own, is
the topic of a nominal clause which, in turn, is subordinated by ü . ¢²
With nominative subject we have b µ
¡¢
²4¡
¨·¡¢
²¡¦4¦®P¨¸¥§ ®¯ ¤2¹ 4 $¡
tapïnmak tïltagï bo ärür ‘this is the reason for the Magi’s worship of
fire to this day’ in Magier, U I 9. Other such instances are biz bir ikinti
©1¨/(¤2¦ºµ ¦
»(¥¦¡N¡¦¼®¯¦¡´¦"¥§¦£
(Wettkampf 54) ‘There is no need for us
¿À)ÁfÂqÃ-ĪÂÆÅqÇ{ÈÁ\ÉËÊ\Ì1ÇgÊÍ/ÊÎ2ÇÏ4ÐMùÑ6 Ϩ)²4Ï
¦Ò,¡¹Í)Ä,¡½bÓ·®PÌ4¨/² ÈY ÔÕ©Ã{½-Ä4"ԥ¼¦Ö¯¡
Ȩ¾²6×( Ø6¥Ù1Ú4ÀËÛ¾Ì6ÇÐÆÍ$ÈÜÂÆÊ·ÊÅqÏ
to fight with each other’ or ‘the treatise of
quoted texts are Buddhist whereas the third is Christian and the fourth
and fifth Manichæan. The case of the subject is crucial : The existence
of nominative subjects shows that -mAk is inflectional and not
derivational while the existence of genitive subjects does not speak
against this status.
An infinitive is governed by instrumental üzä in “käl toyïn!” temäk
üzä toyïn kigürüp ... (U III 75,21) ‘(Buddha) enlisted (them) as monks
by saying “Come, 466 monk!”. The sequence - ‘in order to’, so ·Ý Þàß³áâá
ã
common in Turkish, seems to be rare in Old Turkic. We find it in
tä ä
å{æ ßçãéèbêë¯è åÕìí ßè
ßïîðãñ)ñ/ñòß í êQãïê
ïlka ü âÝðî æróô ðß í4õí
å Ýðßöáâá
ã
Ý í÷ ðëªßð5ßç ä çø æ ù$úqûfüòýÿþ
ü$þ !"#$%'&(
466 Or, if the first word is an Indo-Aryan noun, ‘(It is) time, monk!’.
MORPHOLOGY 281
467 The reading ~
a~
~F+~FB
+
+
FFFg
, in a passage in P. Zieme, ‘Das
nestorianische Glaubenbekenntnis in einem alttürkischen Fragment aus Bulayïq’,
UAJbN.F. 15 (1997/8): 173-180, has no certainty, as the facs. shows that the lacuna
could have contained much more than two letters. In itself such a phrase would not be
surprising in a ms. dated by the editor to the 13th-14th century, which shows kutar- <
kutgar- and metatheses such as
> and yr > ry. The reading ämgändi, which the
editor here proposes (against his reading ämgädi in his quote from the ms. in 1974), is
possible in view of the fact that the base verb is otherwise not attested in Uygur
although there is only one N / ’; I do not think it is obligatory, however, as ämgä- is
attested in Qarakhanid Turkic, and the text does have the aberrant feature of writing the
ablative form in +dAn several times instead of classical +dIn.
282 CHAPTER THREE
468 The use to which the Suv puts forms in -gU¡¢ is an exception: Those do get
accompanied by explicit subjects.
469 Another question, of course, is whether the present participle in -£0¤¥¡!¢ and the
future suffix -£0¤¥¡!¢ should not (when disregarding diachrony) be considered to be mere
homophones.
MORPHOLOGY 283
-¦[§©¨B§ª
« and –¦[§[¬[ªO«® e.g., are common. Nor do -(X)gmA forms ever
appear to be used predicatively; examples are heads or attributes. A
number of Orkhon Turkic examples are quoted in Tekin 1968: 176; we
also have är-igmä in QaraBalg d 5, a runiform inscription of the Uygur
steppe empire. The form is rather common in Manichæan sources, e.g.
¯3°-¯±²³
´°9´³ ´µ¯ ³O¶ ´·<´-³
¸ ²
¨ ª ¬¦ tä¹ rilär (Xw 40-41 and 52-53) ‘the gods
residing in the two palaces of light’; tört elig tä¹ rilärdä tanïgmalar,
tä¹ ri nomïn tutagmalar, tünärig yäklärkä tapunugmalar, tümänlik
º ³¯:» ª+¼ ° ïlïgmalar (M II 11,5-8) ‘those who deny the existence of the
four ruling gods, disparage divine law, worship murky demons, commit
sins by the ten thousands’. Cf. further yerdä yorïgma yala¹ ok ‘people
living on earth’.
Substantivised we have, e.g., bo ... agnayu yatagma ‘this (person)
lying (there) writhing’ (ManErz I 6); several further examples appear in
the Xw. Substantivised -(X)gmA forms can, of course, also get case
»'´
suffixes and +lAr, e.g. in ¦Yª ï män tegmäkä artïzïp ... ‘getting
(oneself) deceived by those who say “I am a preacher” (Xw 122); there
are further such examples in IrqB XX or HTs Biogr 135.
As pointed out in UW 429b (where examples of är-igmä are
mentioned), the Uygur use of this participle is productive only in
Manichæan texts; 470 Buddhist sources only have petrified forms from
¸
the verbs är- ‘to be’, käl- ‘to come’, te- ‘to say’ and ª - (because of
¸ ¸ ²
ª ¬¦ ‘flying’ qualifying ‘creature’ and referring to birds). The Mait
has the forms käligmä and ärigmä, the latter e.g. in tä¹ ri yerintä ärigmä
tä¹ rilär (Mait 103v5) ‘the gods staying in the divine country’. Another
set phrase which stayed in use in later Uygur is ken käligmä üd ‘the
future’ (e.g. BT II 141).
te-gmä is the only -(X)gmA form used for qualifying the verb’s object;
³O²» ¿ À
we have it e.g. in darni te-gmä kapïg ‘the gate called ¨]½¾ ’ (Suv
457,4 and BT II 1077), ÁÂ3ÃaÄÅÇÆ<ÈÊÉËYÌÍÌÎ
ÆLÏ-ÐÆEÌ g kertü töz bälgüsi ‘the
mark of the so-being true root called ÆLÑ]ÆEÒÑ]ÆLÓ ’ (TT VI 190), bo
Ô ÈÎ
ÆdÂ:Ã'Á+Õ-Ö]ÌÐÂ'Ð+ÑËYÑaɵÈ×d ɥ×EÌÎØÐ+ÑÃ×EÑΩÆLÈÊÉ_ËYÌÙÕ-ÐaÕÚÂÛÜ-ÖÂÞÝFÑ]ÆEß+×EÑΩÆLÈÆdÂ:Î (TT VI
248) ‘most of those called kings and rulers in this world are considered
to be bodhisattvas’ and several more in that text. This use is very
common in Buddhist texts (including early ones like TT VI) but seems
to appear only in them. Possessive suffixes referring to subjects are
never appended to -(X)gmA forms.
470 The word read as y(a)rlïkagma in M III nr.9 II,I r9 is now by P.Zieme (personal
communication) seen to be yalvarar m(ä)n.
284 CHAPTER THREE
471 The form is irregular in that the suffix is in Old Turkic otherwise -mAz and not
-mAs, and an early source would not confuse voiced and voiceless consonants. The ms.
is now lost. -mIš would not fit the context very well (though ï is sometimes written with
alef). Qarakhanid sources also have -mAs although they do not confuse the velars either;
the text may therefore belong to a different dialect.
472 “Windiger Monat” in UW 380. A literal German translation would be ‘der Monat
in dem es weht’, ‘wehen’ (unlike ‘to blow’) being a verb which always has the wind as
subject. Various Asiatic nature calendars have a month named ‘windy month’. Zie me,
who last edited the fragment in BT XIX 186-189, translated this expression as
‘antreibender Monat’, taking the verb to be the causative of yäl- ‘to trot, to amble’.
There are three problems with his interpretation, adopted from EDPT 923b: Firstly,
YYLTYR’R differs from yäl-tür-ür in all three vowels, the aorist vowel of yeltir- ‘to
blow’ always being /ä/. Secondly, the earliest certain instances of yältür- are from the
15th century; it does not appear to have turned up in Uygur and a different reading is just
as possible for the Tuñ word referred to in the EDPT entry. Thirdly, the Tuñ and
Ottoman instances referred to in the EDPT are about ‘riding fast’; the îBïOðïFñyïóò+ô0õöÞ÷0ø÷
also confuses the semantically and syntactically distinct Ottoman verbs yäldür- and
yeldir-. See section 4.612 for the frame sentence.
MORPHOLOGY 285
473 Some further examples: okïglï üntägli täjEkml ‘the calling god’, buzuglï artatïglï
‘destroying’ (ms. T I D 200 in the n. to TT V A 23); nonPprq-s-tlPumvgp wyxzsPjgn{vgp5|}4~p^llr|^l ~prsPk
(HTs VII 1952) ‘writings saying ”it is perishable” or ”it is eternal”’, t k#l |E#~p ï
bursa j ‘the congregation meeting the master’ (HTs III 377), bodisavtnïj
- 2E
küdügli ketumati känt uluštakï bodun bukun (Mait 146r5) ‘the population of Ketumati,
which was expecting the arrival of the bodhisattva’. tüz tuyuglï is a common attributive
phrase for Buddha, e.g. in Mait 197r4. In TT VI 153 yokug biligli ‘a person knowing
nothingness’ is, i n half of the ms., replaced by yokug bilir.
474 This fragment in Manichæan script (Wilkens 127) must be rather late, as it
confuses voiced and unvoiced consonants (e.g. yäg for yäk, b(ä)grü for bäkrü ‘firm’,
toturu for tod-ur-u ‘to satiate’) and has some other errors.
286 CHAPTER THREE
475 In OTWF a form ending in -(X)glXg (< -(X)g+lXg) and functioning a bit like a
participle is documented; though it may live on in Turkish -(I)lI, it does not seem to be
the source of the Middle Turkic forms.
476 In the n. to this passage, Hamilton states that this participle refers to actions
reoccurring constantly. Such an interpretation is possible for many of the examples, but
not, e.g., for the one in HTs VII 1913.
MORPHOLOGY 287
died’ (HTs VII 1913), where the time reference is past and the
messenger must have given the news after he arrived: käl-igli should
therefore here have post-terminal meaning, unless there is reference to
regular messenger service; the meaning should then not be ‘the
messenger who came from India’ but ‘the messenger who comes from
India’; this would be possible even if it were not the same person every
time.
The -(X)glI participle is obsolete in inscriptional Turkic, where we
only have the clearly petrified är-kli477 ‘being’: In yuyka ärkli tupulgalï
¸>¹¸º¼»W½g¾3¿KÀPÁÂÿKĹgÅ»3»W½EÆÇd¿ ÅÉȺEÅ»Ç4¿>¸W¹2¸º (Tuñ 13) ‘It is easy to pierce what
is thin, they say, and easy to break what is fine’. The form är-kli+g just
quoted shows that ärkli is also a participle and not a converb. Nor had
it, at that stage, become a postposition as yet, since postpositions do not
feature actant case morphology.478 In other examples quoted in section
4.633, ärkli is added to -Ur participles from intransitive verbs to form
an analytical temporal adjunct describing resultative states. What I here,
following Tekin 1968, read as ärkli is spelled as r2k2l2I, its accusative
form as r2k2l2g2. Thomsen and Gabain had read it as ‘ärikli’ . Schulz
1978: 192-205 attacked both readings and the connection with the
participle suffix -(X)glI; he instead suggested reading the form as
‘ärkäli’ (following Aalto, an editor of the Tuñ inscription) and deriving
the suffix both of this and of ärkän from some mysterious element -kä
or -gä which he was unable to explain. r2k2l2g2, again, was considered
to be some remnant of unexplained archaic morphology. One of
Schulz’s m otives for this proposal, that the participle clearly has a /g/
(as shown in the spelling with Manichæan letters in Xw 117; l.127 of
the relevant ms.) while ärkli is spelled with k2, is not so serious; cf.
footn.477. The central argument for his attack is the fact that the ärkli
constructions are adjunct clauses whereas -(X)glI forms participles
which never serve as adjuncts. I would not consider this to be a serious
problem either (beside the fact that the Tuñ inscription twice uses ärkli
477 In runiform inscriptions /g/ is spelled with k1 / k2 after /r l n/, presumably to show
that it is a stop in this position. For this contact between the two elements to take place,
the onset vowel of the suffix must first have been elided, which it does not do e.g. in the
form berigli quoted above, nor in är-igli in the Uygur example mentioned further on.
There is no phonotactic reason why it shouldn’t, especial ly if we decide that the velar in
ärkli is not only a stop but also voiceless (that it should, in other words, be assigned to
the phoneme /k/), as /rk/ is a sequence well-attested in syllable-final position.
478 Adjuncts, including postpositions, do get instrumental and equative case suffixes in
ašnu+ÊËEÌ azu+ÊË , öÍPÎ +n and birlä+n, dealt with in section 3.3. These suffixes serve to
make the adverbial status of these elements explicit, however, and do not assign
participant tasks to them.
288 CHAPTER THREE
479 The etymology suggested for ärkän by Erdal 1991 was severely criticised by
Johanson 1994 but adopted by Johanson 1996: 91, subsequently to be rejected again
(oral communication). It may, instead, come from *ärür kän, with a particle discussed
in section 3.341, in case the temporal suffix -mAzkAn dealt with in section 4.633 is
formed with this particle.
480 The editors mark the l as well as uncertain.
MORPHOLOGY 289
-_9`a
b , which refers to the future, often had -c>`4a
b as negative
counterpart, there is no evidence for -c>`a
b as present participle suffix.
d
e(f ghijkel
mnj!op(ml l
_ a ï tamu (BT II 551-2) is the hell where the devils
employed there nail a person’s body onto things. The head of this
relativisation therefore represents the place of action; the expression
could also be understood to say that this is the ‘hell which nails bodies
(onto objects)’ if there is no other documentation for heads of -_9`a
b
referring to place. tamu is, however, unlikely to be the subject.
dq"iq
UW 404 lists numerous examples of verb phrases in -_9`4a
b /
dq"esr dq rnt dqvuGdq dq9r w
ärmäz, -_9`a
b , -_9`4a
b c , -_9`a
b , -_9`aGb and -_9`a
b
ärmädin. as if these were analytical constructions. The meanings of
these sequences can, however, generally be distinguished from the
r6x
corresponding simple forms: Sew Keytä ulatï bäglär közgäšdäa
r6xzy{(rp(mlq
kördäa ïg ornatdaa ï ärdilär (HTs VIII 1507), e.g., should not,
presumably, be translated as “Xiao Jing .. . und die übrigen Begs
revidierten und prüften [den Text] und plazierten die Zeichen ...” but
“The lords Xiao Jing etc. were in charge of collating and controlling
(the text) and placing the letters’: The formulation describes the
division of labor and is not identical to the description of processes.
iei ih,}+r4dq,r j~r r h,};r
Similarly anïn öz ät’özlärin ölörgökä bolar sizi | | |
rdqGiqGmdq
ärttäa (TT VIII N 10), which Hartmann and Maue in their
reedition (M"s .
=,;v,
,,Bs",
¡ ,¢C£
Anweisung, dadurch, daß sie sich selbst töten”. What is presum ably
meant is not a characterisation of acts, but a characterisation of a set of
people committing these acts as sinners.
does not act in accordance with his words and is ungrateful, …’; 481 tsuy
ayïg kïlïn>@? ïlïp ökün>@?AB,C,DEAFG"H"I#JKLC,>.GMD"J$F (MaitH XXIII 9v2) ‘those
that have committed sins secretly and have not repented’. The form can
govern converbs, as in the example quoted last. Both köni kertü
N
A O D"J,IPJKLC$>.G and sävin >RQ,HD ï bilmägü>G are presumably meant to denote
ït ätin satgu> ï boltumuz ärsär, a> Y$? F;Y,IjW ïlan ölürgü>.Gge,i,DH-Q$IPQ OkJ$F N J,Flb
> ï boltumuz ärsär, [tïnlïg]larïg kïnagu > ï bukagu > ï
a
D-Q,Q:CVmHC$F6KLC$>.GnWLY
boltumuz ärsär, …482 ‘If we have been hunters of wild boars, fishermen,
wild game hunters, trappers, if we have been netters, bird-snarers, wild-
fowlers or trackers who kill flying and crawling creatures, if we have
been sellers of dog meat, if we have been killers of boa snakes, if we
have been snake charmers or rain-stone magicians, if we have been
jailers who torture people, …’. On the other hand we note in this
passage that, from the actionality point of view, -KESd>
U is the verbal
counterpart of +>
U ; both denote professions or people’s characteristics:
None of the eleven -KEST>
U forms quoted refers to an event, as verb forms
are expected to do; all characterize people by their occupations, by
social position, by recurrent behaviour or by psychological traits. By
formal characteristics, however, this is a participle. The -KST>
U forms in
KT N 13 already show this behaviour; they govern direct objects and
refer to professionals: e$Y$FX? ` HcKgC$>.Gobpe,J a G OW0Y$F;Y)H ïgma bitig taš etKLC$>.G
HY)e K0Y,>2q,YK0Y,Vr> ïkanï > Y$B
N
J,B$C$Vs?J)DH9G ‘There came an architect, (and
there also came) the sculptor General Chang, the nephew of the Chinese
emperor, who creates the ornaments’. Being a sculptor was clearly the
imperial nephew’s vocation, whereas bädiz yaratïgma refers to his
actual work on Köl Tegin’s grave (and ‘general’ is his title). In Uygur
we have e.g. i,HgW ` KLC$>GEH ïnl(ï)g (UigPañc) ‘a herbivorous creature’. In
nominal use: ?)\"J6]VmHCre$Y$F6K0Y;WtH"Y,IPQ$?YrQ a Q ` DHM?J;Wte ` F6KgC$>.G K (M III 29,
Nr.12 r 7) ‘He himself will go to hell and will take the donor after him’;
481 The phrase uwv;xzyo{;|}~c ï bil- ‘to be grateful’ appears also in lines 38 and 57 of the
same passage and uwv;xzyo{;|u6y is ‘ungrateful’.
482 A very similar confession in U II 84-85 adds two further -<m
forms, among them
another one with direct object: 0 .
zL
&c
;9w
gz 6g;cX.
z0log;cc;
ärsär ‘if I became a torturer, if I became an executioner killing people’.
MORPHOLOGY 293
figures and books which Xuantsang brought along’. The Suv has many
such examples: ol künki bizi¬ ¤
¡m¤º¹ ¢$¦6L¢$. 4¡ § ªXf¨»£-ª ¬ rµ$¤$ ¤½¼
tïnlïglar (Suv 6,13) ‘creatures, mainly bovines, sheep and pork, which
we slaughtered on that day at our meal’. tükäl bilgä t(ä)¬ ¦ £w®"6° ¬ ¦ ³
burxan y(a)rlïkagu ï bo bodi tegmä yorïk (Suv 379,9) ‘this path called
bodhi which Buddha, the perfectly wise god of gods, teaches / taught’;
birök eliglär xanlar k(a)ltï t(ä)¬ ¦ « ³ (®"¤6°¦ ïkagu ï bo törö¾,¥ ¦ ¼
… bo nom ärdinig äšidsärlär (Suv 423,13; similarly 436,21) ‘if kings
and rulers should, however, live according to the teaching which you,
my lord, propound (= yarlïk¤L$ ï), and … listen to this jewel of a
doctrine’. Another -E±T
² form qualifying the verb’s object appears in a
Mz (i.e. earlier) ms. version of Suv 189,13 but is replaced by the -¡ ¿
²
form in the much later Petersburg ms. These instances do not refer to
persons by their occupations or characteristic behaviour, as agentive
-E±T
² forms do.
used in those sources. Suffixes of these shapes appear also as finite verb
forms, but the uses and meanings of the finite forms and of the perfect
participles are different and not to be confused. -dOk does not in Old
Turkic appear in finite use (as we shall show below) in its positive form
but only as negative -madOk; this latter is the negative counterpart of
both finite and infinite -mIš in earlier Old Turkic texts: -mAmIš comes
up only in late Uygur. While finite -mIš (and with it finite -mAdOk)
express evidentiality and mirativity, the perfect participles in -dOk /
-mAdOk and -mIš (as well as the late -mAmIš) never have this content.
Finite -yOk is vividly post-terminal, implying the speaker’s direct
observation of an event (whereas the use of finite -mIš involves autopsy
only if the speaker is using it as a mirative, then referring not to an
event but to a state). The meaning of infinite -yOk does not seem to
differ much from infinite -mIš, on the other hand, and that of infinite
-mAyOk not much from infinite -madOk.
In the perfect domain, the earliest Old Turkic (including Orkhon
Turkic, the Uygur kaganate inscriptions and most Manichæan texts)
differs from the rest of the corpus: In the Orkhon inscriptions, -mIš (or
-mis, as it is spelled there) mainly qualifies or refers to subjects, while
-dOk appears in the inscriptions and in most Manichæan sources when
the head refers to participators other than the subject (e.g. the direct or
indirect object) or to circumstances (e.g. the time of the event). -mA-
dOk is well documented in all manner of Uygur texts as readily
qualifying subjects as well as non-subjects; e.g. in arïmadok tsuy
ÀÁÀÂ)ÃÄ)Å"Æ$ÁÀÇ
(TT IV B50) ‘my unpurified sins’ where the head is subject
ÃÉ
and täÈ ri unamadok avïn ‘a pleasure woman not approved of by
heaven’ from the IrqB 483 or körmädök ešidmädök savlarïg kördüm tep
tedimiz (MaitH XX 14r5) ‘We said (about some) matters that we had
seen (them although we) had neither seen (them) nor heard about
(them)’, where the head is direct object.
In Orkhon Turkic, -dOk is spelled with t1 or t2 after stems ending in /l
n r/ such as kazgan-, olor-, yaÈ ïl-, yazïn-, ber- but never after ones
ending in other consonants or vowels; this apparently shows that /d/
was realised as a stop after the sonants. This distribution appears to
have been retained in Manichæan texts, which write -tOk- with stems
such as bol-, ämgän-, ärksin-, kargan-, tägin-, ör-, ür-, är- kurtgar-,
azgur-, kör- and turgur-. When a -dOk form is used not for qualifying a
nominal but itself serves for reference and when it refers to an entity
other than the subject, reference to this latter can appear in a possessive
suffix added to it. This is by no means obligatory as it is in Turkish,
however, and the -dOk form does appear without possessive suffix
when the hearer or reader is expected to know the identity of the subject
in some other way.
In section 4.622 we quote some examples of (positive) -dOk forms
used as direct objects; most of them appear in Manichæan texts, but
there is, e.g., an instance of är-dök+in ‘its being (acc.)’ in a rather late
letter. This may not be an archaic trait in that case; rather, är-dök from
är- ‘to be’ appears – as in Turkmen – to have developed a life of its
own, independent of that of the suffix itself. If the literal source of
ärdök täg, corresponding to the common Buddhist term Skt. Õ"Ö)Õ×,Ö)Õ"Ø
‘thus-ness’, is ‘like what is’, this w ould mean that ärdök here refers to
the subject of är-. In a Buddhist text we have a headless -dOk form
referring to the object of the subordinated verb and serving as subject of
the whole sentence: ogrï tep tedöküÙ üz nägü ol (KP 59,5) ‘What is that
which you have called a thief?’. A further such instance is quoted in
section 4.621. In kältöküm bo tep ötünti ‘He said “These are (the
circumstances of) my coming’, on the other hand, the -dOk form, which
serves as topic in a nominal sentence, appears to refer to circumstances
(the same Buddhist text just quoted, KP 60). We also have -dOk forms
in oblique cases: An inscriptional example (with 1st person possessive
and the instrumental case) is biltökümün ödöküÚPÛÜÝ,ÞÜ)ß Ö@ÝmðlàMó Õ¸àoá¾ó ÝmàMÕ9ûmàâfóàðÚ
ãåäçæéè7ê)ëRìMíïîPðlñ.ò9óôõõ¯ò-ö<÷¸øùòóú,òûmôø½óü2ñý2îPömôòníïþ$ý<ñ.îÿô ýmü
aydokïnß Ö ÕÛ Ý
-Þ Õ¸à ‘it used to come true according to what he
In it ürdöki kuš üni ... äštilmäz ‘No barking of dogs and no sound of
birds is heard ...’ (M III nr.32 r1) or bo kargantokïn, alkantokïn,
kä8 9;:<=,>?@5A0B>A-=DCE<=,>?@5AGF-@IH#JK:L7?@M<3@N=#:?PO>+QCE<R+:TS;BUAVR+WXOYW?WA-U9 ‘An
ignorant person takes this cursing and quarreling of theirs to be just
scolding and play’ (M I 9,16 -18), the -dOk forms refer to the action; as
the contexts show, the 3rd person singular possessive suffixes refer to
plural subjects. The possessive suffix can also be wholly absent with
-dOk forms used as perfect participles, if the context makes this
reference superfluous, even if the verb is not impersonal; e.g. yarok
?:VHZ@ [*=,CAV:93@ Q\@ QKBW;B^]-S?CRCA (M III nr.1,IV v3) ‘because light came and
dispersed darkness’: The -dOk form is often governed by CRCA with the
meaning ‘because’. In the -_`aYbdcfegec phrase (discussed in section
4.635), intransitive verbs appear as freely as transitive ones. The
locative of the -dOk form rather commonly serves as a common
temporal converb (see section 4.633); it can also be governed by
temporal postpositions such as bärü ‘since’ or kesrä and ken ‘after’. In
Manichaean sources, the instrumental form (added to -dOk with
possessive suffix) supplies ‘reasons’ for the main clause, e.g.
azgurdokïn ‘because he led (our senses) astray’ (Xw 19) or kop yerdä
h
g ïg ämgäk körtökin ‘because they suffered bitter torments
everywhere’.
Tekin 1997 quotes instances of -dOk and -mAdOk found in the
runiform inscriptions and further deals with the etymology of this suffix
and with its real or assumed finite uses.
484 Yenisey inscriptions have both š1 and š2, but Orkhon Turkic uses the character
serving as š2 in the Yenisey inscriptions both in front and back contexts.
MORPHOLOGY 297
487 Another four instances of -dOk which appear in the colophons or in the Buyan
Ävirmäk section which is a later addition represent the finite -dI past in the 1st pers. pl.,
and show that these sections belong to Middle Turkic. The Buyan Ävirmäk has been
excluded from the material serving as base for this grammar.
488 kir- for this meaning is a calque on a Chinese expression, as shown by Hamilton in
his note.
MORPHOLOGY 299
[kï]lïn_`=acbd
efbhgia!e7j<k0l7dm n op qsrutop6vcwxy ïsïn bultum (M III nr.13, 31,32)
‘Because of those alms which (I) gave and the good deeds which (I)
performed I found the bright [heavens] as retribution’, reference to the
subject is inherited from the main verb. In the following example (from
Suv 5,8) the perfect participle used as action noun is also adnominal but
it has a subject, referred to by a possessive suffix on the head:
korkmaz {|!}~h
?|=4 ï sizlärkä tirilmiš tïltagïmïn sözläyin ‘Don’t be
afraid, let me now tell you all why I got resurrected’. ögmiškä ymä
7,=4!,Wu@@iL=4!6< u<c!!@c!L
bolurlar burxanlar (U III 73,21), finally, signifies ‘without being glad
when somebody praises them nor sorry when somebody criticizes them
they, the Buddhas, have an equally positive attitude towards both’.
F.W.K. Müller’s translation as “Weder über das Lob freuen sie sich,
noch vom Tadel fühlen sie sich betroffen” is acceptable because the
context lets the reader understand Lob and Tadel as action nouns and
complete the subject of ög- and yer- as ‘somebody’. It is misleading,
however, when Gabain 1974: 73 defines -mïš, -miš as “zeitlich
indifferentes Verbalnomen, aktiven oder passiven Charakters” only
because -mIš clauses can qualify both subject and object heads, and
wrong when she renders ögmiš as ‘Lob’ in §122 in the same way as she
renders i ¡£¢4¤!¥ as ‘Regen’ in §123 and tügün as ‘Knoten’ in §124, as if
it were a derived lexeme.
-mIš forms are also used as attributive and predicative participles, as
the two instances in the following sentence: in ¦§Q¨i©ªf¦<«h¨i©<¬7!«?®©¯ ïr
ö°!§$±²³©=§
«©=´
µ ïš yer ... beš bölükün bölmiš ol (BT V 188-191) ‘That
bright and shining praised land with diamond appearance is divided into
five parts’. Note that yer is the object of böl- but the subject of reversive
alkat- ‘get (oneself) praised’. A number of -mIš forms from causative
-(X)t- stems (in later sources replaced by -tXl- stems) are lexicalised:
No bases are attested for alkatmïš, amratmïš, bayutmïš, bulgatmïš,
eritmiš, kargatmïš and so forth. olar bo darni sözlämišig umagaylar
ämgätgäli ¶¸·¹ º » ¼ ½@¾=¿PÀ$ÁÃÂÄ@ÅsÆUÇÈ$ÈuÉ2Ä4Ê=ËÌÉ2È
Ä4ÍMÎÍMÎ!ÏÑÐÄË!ÍÓÒÔÎ<ÐÄÉÎÕÅsÆ4ÂÎ
has recited this Ö× Ø!Ù@Ú!Û Ü Ý ’. In two attributive examples quoted in the
previous paragraph from M III nr.13 the -mIš forms qualify their
objects. Predicative participial (and perfect) -mIš presumably has to be
followed by copular ärür or ol, as it would otherwise be confused with
evidential -mIš, which is always predicative; the former is dealt with in
section 3.26, the latter in section 3.27.
Þß<àáâãâ0ä
ß,åçæß,åãäÃè6áséêÞìëí=î ï ðÔñòó6ôõ¸öLó6÷ùøúøüûþý¸ý¸ý ÿ ünmäyöki ) and
The -yOk form was in use only in Uygur; its suffix is attested with a
300 CHAPTER THREE
L18 and 21-22 (both tükämäyök).489 It has a finite use as vivid past, a
past with relevance for the speaker’s present, as discussed in section
3.26. In infinite use, however, it merely expresses post-terminal
content, mirroring the split found in the use of -mIš between finite and
infinite use; e.g. bulganyok kö üllüg tïnlïglar ‘creatures with confused
hearts’ (Pothi 227 -8); tükäl yazoklug, sïnyok
! ‘an
utterly sinful priest who had broken the precepts’ (fr. TI D 200 in the n.
to TT V A 23); ädgü tetyök nom ‘the teaching considered to be good’
(Pothi 108). Negated e.g. övkä kö" ül öritmäyök tïnlïg ‘a creature which
never let itself get into an angry frame of mind’ (U III 42,12). In all the
instances quoted hitherto, the head was the subject of the -yOk form.
Negated and qualifying the verb’s object, as the negative counterpart of
-mIš, as it were, we have, e.g.: kïlmayok ayïg kïlïn# ! ïg ikiläyü takï
kïlmaz män (Suv 138,3) ‘The sins which (I) have not committed till
now I will not commit in the future either’; körtüm körmäyök yerig,
äšiddim äšidmäyök nomug (HTs Tug 13a3-4) ‘I have seen places
hitherto unseen, have heard teachings hitherto unheard’. Nominalised,
representing the object: kemi sïyokïn tuta üntüm (KP 54,6) ‘I got out
holding on to a piece of ship debris’ ( sï- ‘to break – tr.’). 490
-yOk forms are also used as abstracts; possibly, only negative verbs
here occur with this function: The instances sundari kïznï"$#
%
sä" &(')+*-,/.102'43 )5'(687
0
,9.;:,<3=, >@? (BT III 210) ‘learning that the girl S. had
not yet arrived from the J. monastery, …’ and özümnüA bašgarïp
umayokum ärür BDCFEGIHJLKNM#H4O H
PQH
RIPSTOUVWQX
YZU<R\[+TU=]Q ^ _=`aIb8cedfgih<_jkl
is a case of my being unable to suceed’ b oth have possessive suffixes
referring to the subjects and subjects in the genitive. sav söz ötmäyökkä
(HTs VII 2065-66) ‘because the news had not yet gotten through’ has
no such suffix and the subject is in the nominative; a further instance
without possessive suffix appears in HTs V 192. Similarly, bir küp bor
tägmäyök üm#no (Sa9,6 in SammlUigKontr 2) signifies ‘because a
container of wine has not arrived’. The following -yOk form is
governed by a relational noun, again giving the same meaning: tävlig
kürlüg sakïnm ïn köni sözlämäyök tïltagïnta alku tïnlïglar yerip yarsïp
uzatï kargayurlar (DKPAMPb 273) ‘Because, due to his deceitful
thoughts, he has not been saying the truth, all creatures despise him and
491 Otherwise the ms. confuses velars only very rarely (once ’GSWG for ägsük, which
appears correctly elsewehere in the text, and twice S’GYZ for säkiz).
The sentence ¸¹Wº »½¼¾(¿¾W»
bersägim (b2r2s2g2m) bar ärmiš was read in Ongin 10 in
Clauson’s 1957 reedition, and there translated as “I had a wish to give my services”.
Tekin 1968 proposed reading ber-sig-im, assigning the form to the suffix discussed
here. He is right in stating that -sA-(X)g, which Clauson was presumably thinking of, is
302 CHAPTER THREE
highly unlikely here: There is a denominal desiderative suffix +sA- and a deverbal
desiderative suffix -(X)g+sA-; -(X)gsA- became -(X)sA- only in Qarakhanid. The
reading is hardly correct: All reference to this inscription (including Clauson’s) is based
on Radloff’s work, which is known to have often been untrustworthy in the Old Turkic
domain; there is no free alternation between voiced and voiceless consonants in any
Orkhon Turkic text.
Benzing 1980 suggested that the suffix was originally -sXk but that the phrase kün
tugsuk ‘east’ etc. was in fact petrified and lexicalised and that the productive forms
were to be read as -(A)sXk. This was meant to explain why Tuñ 22 and Ongin 2 have s2
in the suffix when added to the stems olor- and tug-; Schulz 1978: 139 follows his
teacher in reading the Tuñ 12 and 22 instances as ‘olurasïqïm’ and ‘olurasiqim’
respectively. According to Benzing, -(A)sXk then changed to -(A)sXg as first
documented in the Ongin inscription in the form just quoted, and was the source of the
Turkish, Tatar etc. future participle in -AsI with possessive suffix, already attested in the
DLT. The problem with this idea is that the additionally hypothesized vowel is nowhere
attested in Old Turkic and that it contradicts the facts: tug-suk in Qara Balgasun B7
would not have been written with wq if it had been ‘tug-asïk’; nor can kigür-süg in Xw
167 be read as ‘kigür-äsig’.
ù
492 kürä-gü+ +in with agentive 2nd person suffix referring to the Turk nation, and
accusative ending as demanded by the postposition by which the word is governed.
MORPHOLOGY 303
kör-, which editors before Tekin had thought of, much less accords with the context
even when taken with the meaning ‘to obey’. I take kürägü to have been lexicalised; the
context does not permit projectional -gU here.
493 A few examples for this suffix sequence are quoted in OTWF 138; cf. also bo ...
sävgüsüz taplagusuz yarsïn ïg ätöz (Suv 613,2) ‘this ... disgusting body not to be loved
or desired’.
494 -gUsXz is not the negative counterpart of -gUlXk, as stated in Gabain 1974 § 141.
304 CHAPTER THREE
the nominative: ig toga ketgüsi yok (U I 45,4) ‘It is not expected that the
illnesses will disappear’; mäni m yüräkim [..] sintädä ö ! "
bargusï yok (TT X 466) ‘It is [quite] unlikely that my heart should
abandon you’. sïggusï yok ärdi ‘it could not be expected to fit in’ shows
the same analytical construction with abstract -gU transposed into the
past.
Like the ones with -sXk, -gU forms can also refer to or qualify non-
subject participants: In bergü bulmatïn (KP 10,4) ‘not finding anything
to give’, e.g., the form refers to the direct object; this is also the task of
the form sakïnmagu ‘things not to be thought’ quoted above, and of the
form in kïlmagu kïlïn# ‘a deed not to be done’. In $&%'$)(*# $ +! (
yüküngü ayaglïg atlïg ka ïm mani burxan (Pothi 2) ‘my respected and
famous father, the prophet Mani, whom one should worship with a
reverent mind’ it qualifies the indirect object, in engü üdi yagumïš ‘the
time when he is expected to descend is said to be nearing’, the time
adjunct. äv in olorgu äv (HTs III 739) ‘a house to live in’ is the place of
the activity referred to in the verb. In TT VA 88-98 we have three
instances of -gU used adnominally to qualify entities which serve as
instruments to the action and a fourth one referring to the action itself:
al $), -.0/- sakïn# (TT VA 88) ‘meditation for weakening (the
demons)’, al $), -.1/- biliglär (TT VA 92) ‘notions for weakening’,
ulug al $), -.1/-2 $3 / $ (TT VA 94) ‘the great weakening seal’ and ulug
al $), -.0/-465 (TT VA 97) ‘the business of the great weakening’.
ornangu (TT I 114, M I 27,32) and kongu (M I 27,35) ‘dwelling-place’
are local. A number of examples qualify yol ‘way’, clearly used as
instrument in the contexts quoted; among them we have ozgu kutrulgu
yol yï $ (Pothi 63) ‘the way and direction to salvation’, t(ä).7 % 7.78)9
bargu … yol (Pothi 72) ‘the way by which to go to the land of gods’
and bošungu yol agtïngu 5 $ -;:< 3 9 , )= # ( (M III nr.1 IV v14-15)
‘because he knew no way to freedom and no ladder for rising’. In the
following three instances the -gU form qualifies the means to an end or
the material, i.e. an instrument: tükädi n(ï)gošaklarnï>?- % ïn yazokïn
öküngü xwastwan(i)vt (Xw 221, ms. B) ‘The Xw., with which the
auditors are to repent their sins, has ended’; kaltï uz kiši uzlangu äd
bulmasar … (M I 171) ‘when, e.g., a craftsman does not find the
material to carry out his craft (with) …’; al $), -.1/-@> $ ïn# ‘meditation
by which to weaken (bad influences)’.
-gU forms can also be used predicatively, as in :A % 7.&! (*# % 7.
suvdakï tïnlïglar birök burxan körkin körü kurtulgu ärsär ... (U II
17,26) ‘If, now, (any) creatures in this world are to be saved by seeing
the figure of Buddha, ...’; this is followed by pr(a)tikabut körkin
MORPHOLOGY 305
495 Gabain reads krgäksiz and translates this as ‘braucht man nicht’. In view of the fact
that Ceylon is an island, I have here followed Anderson 2002 § 1.1.3 in taking siz not to
be the privative suffix but the 2nd person plural pronoun, on assuption that the Chinese
text is compatible with this. There is no need to take -gU är- to be an auxiliary
construction, as Anderson did in the lecture referred to.
306 CHAPTER THREE
496
¾À¿ÂÁÄà The sequence subsequently fused to give -gUdäg; Brockelmann 1954: 248 quotes
Å Æ ÇNÈÄ É?ÊÂË<Ì Í·Ì Í7ÎtÌ Ï'Ç0ÈÄÇÐÈÑ·Ê1Ò0Ì_Ç0ÓË<ÔÕ<Ö×Ë<ÔÕØÊÚÙ?Ñ&ÕÊNÈÛÈ!ÌÜÍ?εÒ1ÔÝÍßÞÚÊ1ÒßÏ6à?ÕÊ0ÈÚá
-gAdAg lives on in
Tuvan or in Khakas, expressing the same content of ‘it seems, it looks as if’.
497 This is a verse passage, whence the unsual word order. Cf. the sentence quoted at
the end of section 4.8.
MORPHOLOGY 307
3.286. Converbs
Converbs are verb forms used adverbially or, especially in the case of
-(X)p and -(X)pAn, used within a sequel of clauses forming a sentence,
linked so that their content comes to be understood as coordinative.
There are two types of exceptions in which we find converbs in
adnominal use: One is the construction with vowel converb found in
tik-ä kulgak+ïn ‘with cocked ears’, discussed below in this section,
where the whole phrase is adverbial. The other is the use of är-ip
linking two attributive satellites to each other when the first is more
complex than the second; see the end of section 4.122 for that.
Converbs’ subjects are often identical to that of the verb to which
they are subordinated; when they do have their own subject it appears
in the nominative. A third possibility, when no subject is stated, is that
the clause’s content is meant to hold for any appropriate entity as
subject; a fourth that the subject should be supplied by the addressee or
reader from out of the context. Thus, when, at the beginning of a letter
but
ACBDFEHafter
GIKJMLthe
NOQP address, we find the sentence adrïlgalï yirilgäli ärü ärü
ï (HTs VII 2064) we know that we have to translate ‘Bye
MORPHOLOGY 309
and bye498 it has become a long time since (you and me) were separated
and torn apart’ although the con verbs in -gAlI are not accompanied by
any explicit reference to a subject.
From the morphological point of view we can classify converb
suffixes into ones that are opaque and such that show, in various
degrees of transparency, that they come from some other form. Some
elements bringing verb stems into adverbal function are in fact not mere
morphological forms but whole phrases, in which nominal verb forms
are governed by a postposition. We shall here list all converbs and
discuss their morphological aspect; we start from opaque converb
suffixes, adding their various evident or putative derivates, then
mention converbial derivates from verbal nominals. The functions and
syntactic uses to which all these are put are dealt with in section 4.63
(‘Clauses as adjuncts’). Adjunct clauses can, in Old Turkic, also be
formed without resorting to simple or complex converbs, by using
conjunctions; such structures are not mentioned in the present section.
The conditional suffix dealt with in section 3.287 is actually also a
converb suffix at least in the runiform inscriptions: We have already, in
connection with -(X)p, granted that converb clauses can be highly
independent syntactically; the -sAr form is a converb in that it has
neither verbal nor nominal inflection and is used adverbally. It does,
however, become increasingly linked to the category of subject person
already at a very early stage and moves towards finite status in the
course of the development of Old Turkic.
498 är-ü, the vowel converb of the copula, is only attested in lexicalised ärü ärü
‘gradually etc.’.
499 Johanson 1988: 136 quotes several unacceptable ‘etymologies’ for this suffix, says
“we shall refrain from adding new proposals here” and then does add a new proposal in
the long footnote immediately attached to this sentence. Johanson’s proposal is
unacceptable as well, as it is based on an intermediate form ‘-yUb’ (to be derived from a
Mongolian converb suffix ending in U); such a form is not and cannot have been
attested, as there is no trace of a ‘buffer y’ in Old Turkic, nor indeed anywhere outside
Oguz.
310 CHAPTER THREE
edited in UAJb 16:221-2, ‘coming down from the palace of the Moon
God’). kara xanka barïpan, yalava\^]_` ïpan kälmädia(b c.]defb0g -ä in the
epitaph E30 tells of a South-Siberian nobleman who went as a
messenger to the Qarakhanid ruler and did not return. There are also a
number of examples in the DLT in verse. This not very common form
and the even rarer -(X)pAnXn (early Uygur, Manichæan and Buddhist)
are discussed in Johanson 1988, who quotes a number of examples.
Among the etymologies quoted or suggested there for -(X)pAn, the only
possible one seems to be the segmentation *-bA+n, i.e. that it should be
formed with the instrumental suffix +(X)n as in -mAtI+n discussed
below. Another possibility is that -(X)pAn comes from -(X)pAnXn by
haplology; that (attested e.g. in ukupanïn in Mait 23r12, körüpänin in
MaitH Y 194) would come from -(X)p anïn, i.e. from the instrumental
form of ol used in the meaning ‘thereby’ beginning the superordinate
clause, secondarily adapting to synharmonism as the two fused:
Johanson stresses the instrumental meaning of these two forms as
against the other Old Turkic converbs including -(X)p, and in UW 142
we find a number of examples for the ‘superfluous’ use of anïn after
subordinate clauses. IrqB 35 can be read as kugu kuš kanatïa_ih`jhlkm_n ïn
kalïyu barïpan ögiadpo_a ïa_Hqde2r`>g4bts or kugu kuš kanatïa_uh`jhlkv_n ïn
kalïyu barïpan ögiadwo_a ïa_xqdeyr`>g4bts and in both cases signify ‘The
swan put him on his wings and so rose in the air and brought him to his
parents’. Johanson 1988: 146 quotes three DLT cases of anïn written
separately after -(X)p forms; these passages, which he interprets as
instances of wrong spelling, in fact agree with the use of anïn in Uygur
and go a long way towards explaining -(X)pAnXn. The problem with
the Johanson hypothesis is that -(X)pAn by no means always has
instrumental meaning; in Xw 134, a rather early text, its use is temporal
or conditional: öa`>dznd{]_` (ärmiš in a ms.) tepän biltimiz clearly
means, in its context, ‘We know what there was (or ‘what there is said
to have been’) before that’ or perhaps, more literally, ‘If one said “What
was there (or “What is there supposed to have been”) before , we know
(the answer)’. 500
A construction of the form nä + -(X)p converb + Ok appears to have
exclusively temporal meaning; see section 4.633.
In BT XIII 1,96 we find the verse yagïz ye[r] täa(b|n\d.}jd`Cb ku}Kb c in quite
fragmentary context, translated as “übe r die ganze braune Erde seid ihr
500 The te- form corresponds to Turkic diye or dese. The three subsequent sentences
have the same structure though they contain different interrogative clauses.
MORPHOLOGY 311
501 Better perhaps ‘You have been showing endurance like the brown earth’. The
beginning of the following verse is lost, but in none of the more than 100 interpretable
lines of the poem is there any instance of a word divided between the lines. särip sïz as
imperative makes no sense either, especially since another sentence in the context also
shows the polite plural address to a bodhisattva.
312 CHAPTER THREE
502 Some of the “ausnahmsweise” instances in Gabain 1974: 121 are simple errors;
tükün-i (from TT I 126), e.g., is a mistake for tükäti and o ½ ¾$¿ -ï is in fact a -gAlI form.
503 See OTWF 770 with footn. 506 for documentation and discussion and cf. Röhrborn
2000: 271.
MORPHOLOGY 313
follows ... The result of her having dreamt that her teeth were falling
out (tüš-ä) ... That she saw a dream of the throne falling (tüšä) to the
ground and her bun disintegrating and falling off (yuplunup tüš-ä) ...
That she saw (herself) separated from (her) clothing ...’. The activities
seen in the dreams and made the objects of the verbs tüšä- ‘to dream’
and kör- ‘to see’ are expressed by the verb forms ün-miš, thrice tüš-ä
and adrïl-mïš; the first and third present the activity as having been
accomplished while the instances of tüš-ä may be presenting a view of
it as still going on. Here, then, the vowel converb is used as a participle
referring to an event, like the aorist.
A converb suffix ‘-ÀÂÁ ’ has been read in BQ S9; a converb of this
shape is postulated already in Thomsen 1916: 82-84, followed by
Gabain 1941: 116 (§223)504 and Doerfer 1993: 30. This may in fact be a
composite form, consisting of the vowel converb with the equative
suffix; that would give the reading bol-(u)+ÀÃ in that passage and
yogur-(u)+ÀÃ in Tuñ 26. ÄÅÆQÇ ÀÃ appears also in KT SW as completed
by Matuz in Turcica 4(1972): 15-24, in the passage ] b(ä)g(i)m teg(i)n
yüg(ä)rü (or yüg(ü)rü) t(ä)ÈÉCÊ ÄÅÆÌËQÇÎÍ Àà , where täÈÉCÊ ÄÅÆQÇ Àà as well as
Ï ÅÐÄÅÆFÇ ÀÃ of BQ S9 both signify ‘after he died’. Tekin 1968 transl ated
the passage öÈÉ>Ñ Ð ÊÑÉ Ï ÅÒyÇ É Ç ÀÃ 505 ïdïp ... ašdïmïz as “having sent the
vanguard forward as if kneading (the snow), we climbed ...”, and has
adhered to this translation in his reeditions of the inscription in 1994
and 1995. Thomsen 1916: 82-84 had discussed the passage and
interpreted the function of this form and the meaning of the verb
correctly (apparently not noticed by Clauson since EDPT 906a is quite
off the mark); see OTWF 755 (and 354) for the (quite solid) evidence
for yogur- ‘to open the way, cross a dangerous or difficult area’, a
meaning which Thomsen had already determined (although his
interpretation of the clause is not, I think, satisfactory); it is probably
related to Ï ÓÔ (thus in Tkm.), ÕyÖ×yØÙ etc. and not to be confused with the
verb spelled the same way signifying ‘to knead’. I would translate the
passage as ‘After the vanguard opened the way (through the Sayan
mountains, I) sent (the army) off and we went over the ...’. A converb
504 The form ‘ ÚtÛ ÜÌÝ¬Þ ’ in BQ W4 mentioned there should be read as ät-är+ÝlÞ and has
nothing to do with this converb, since it comes from an aorist.
505 He reads this as ‘ßà¬áâ>ãÌä¬å ’ and on p.74 declares it to come from ‘ ß[à¬áâ>ãæâYãÌälå ’ by
haplology. While a haplology of aorist forms of the shape °Ur-Ur is indeed attested in
non-canonical Uygur texts (see section 2.412 above), there is no inscriptional evidence
for the phenomenon.
314 CHAPTER THREE
506 The Old Anatolian Turkic converb suffix -(y)IcAk signifying ‘when’ could very
well come from this suffix together with the particle (O)k.
507 There are a few exceptions, e.g. u-ma-yu in BT II 266, körmäyü in TT VIII A28,
ilinmäyü in TT VIII A40 and Middle Turkic bulmay (thus!) in KP X,5.
508 Schulz 1978: 214 finds this spelling “merkwürdig” and thinks it may mean that the
suffix was here to be read with A in the last syllable; in fact, implicit vowels can also be
read as X in standard runiform spelling: What this instance means is only that the writer
of the inscription apparently no longer knew the form -mAtI and could not know that the
second vowel of -mAtIn had originally been a final vowel.
MORPHOLOGY 315
509 Johanson 1979: 21 thinks it is “eventuell möglich” that there should be a positive
gerund [Ti] in the form [tökTi] in the passage tün udïmatï küntüz olormatï kïzïl kanïm
qPrts#u)q v.s#wtxywzq{u-xHv |b}r1~=rtxyq v.H1v ~s#r-r1~'-HxkqPv{|h
s (Tuñ 52) ‘Not sleeping by night and not
resting by day, squandering my red blood and letting my black sweat run, I constantly
gave my services (to the ruler)’, which, he thinks, could be tök-ti ‘pouring out’ or tök-
üt-ti ‘letting get poured out’.
510 See section 3.134 above.
511 Among the instances he mentions, 23 have t, 4 d and 3 dd. The exceptions appear
in Xw, TT II B and Pothi, which in other cases also occasionally confuse the alveolars;
all three instances of dd are from Pothi.
512 bilmädin 634, yermädin 592. Spelled with t in the late ms. in Uygur script.
316 CHAPTER THREE
513 -yXn and -(A)yXn are other possible shapes for this suffix; the former is preferred
by Doerfer 1993: 26. Johanson 1988: 137 (n.15) spells it as -(y)Xn; this is not only
counterfactual (since the /y/ is not dropped after consonants), it also contradicts
morphophonemic structure, in that Old Turkic knows no ‘buffer y’. The participle suffix
-yOk is a suffix starting with /y/ and not dropping it after consonants. The thoughts
around this converb form in the n. to TT II,2 26 are obsolete.
514 This term is in order in view of the fact that the vowel converb is, in Turkish,
always doubled when in living use.
515 The suffix is here spelled with n2 in spite of back synharmonism; this is not so
surprising, however, as we also find bat-sïk+ï
(KT S2; suffix -sXk) or yagï+sïz (KT;
suffix +sXz) spelled with s2.
516 The form kaygu < kadgu ‘sorrow’ also found there shows that this text had al ready
undergone the passage d > y; most other intervocalic ds in that text belong to the Old
Turkic phoneme /t/. Other late characteristics are the particle mA used after nouns (and
not just after pronouns), tur- used as copula, +nI as accusative suffix for nouns, -gUl as
suffix for the 2nd person imperative (replacing older gIl under the influence of the
contraction of -gU ol) and özgä (spelled with s) ‘other’.
MORPHOLOGY 317
The converb form in -gAlI has two main functions, one temporal
(discussed in section 4.633), the other one ‘final’; the final function (for
which see section 4.636) is akin to the use of -gAlI as supine suffix
(details in section 4.23). A few instances which appear to have
consecutive meaning are quoted in section 4.637.
The negative counterpart of -gAlI is rather rare; examples are
yogulmagalï (HTsPar 55 v13), atamagalï ‘so as not to pronounce’ (HTs
III 399, in final use) or küsäyür män käntü özüm anïtmagalï ‘I wish I
would not let myself remember’ (supine use).
-gAlI is also part of verb phrases, all discussed in section 3.25: -gAlI
är-, -gAlI tur- and -gAlI alk- express actionality while -gAlI bol- or
-gAlI u- express ability. Here again, as in some constructions just
referred to, the meaning is neither final nor temporal but more similar to
the English infinitive (as pointed out by Nevskaya 2002) or to the Latin
supine; see section 4.23.
The meanings of - ·z¸¹Vº» , ‘as long as’ and ‘until’, make it likely that it
comes from the formative -(X)g with the 3rd person possessive suffix
and the equative case ending. This etymology is hypothetical, as -(X)g
517 The QB forms bol-mayïn, kör-mäyin and säv-mäyin, which were by some also
thought to represent this form, are negated volitives, i.e. finite. This is also how they are
translated in Dankoff 1983. The -mAtI(n) converb appears in the QB as -madI(n).
518 Early Anatolian Turkish has -madIn as well.
318 CHAPTER THREE
The subjects of the contextual converbs (see section 4.631) and of the
-gAlI form are generally identical to those of the main clause, though
there are some clear exceptions of various types. In this matter they
differ from -Ê Î ÆVÌÐ and -sAr but are similar to the secondary converbs.
tuydokumuzda ‘when we feel the smell of incense’ (Suv 424,18). 519 The
QB also uses both -dokdA and the aorist in the locative case for
temporal expressions. It is not, of course, evident that any perfect
participle in an adverbial case form has to be an instance of a secondary
converb suffix. Forms in -gU+dA, e.g., could be both a secondary case
suffix and thge mere sequence of -gU and +dA; more research into the
actual distributions is needed.
The dative case is also used for forming complex temporal converb
suffixes, with -dOk and possessive suffix in Orkhon Turkic, with -mAk
and the possessive suffix in Uygur. Clauses around -gU+kA, on the
other hand, have final content. -mIš+kA and -mA-yOk+kA serve as
kernels for causal clauses, sometimes with possessive suffix referring to
the subject before the case suffix. -mAk+Iã)ä also forms causal clauses
and, like the other converbs in this function, is discussed in section
4.635. Clauses in which -mAk+Iã-ä has temporal meaning all have a
noun phrase referring to a stretch in time as subject of the verb; that
appears to be what supplies the temporal content, which means that the
basic meaning of -mAkIã)ä must have been causal. Limiting ourself to
Uygur we could therefore say that the basic meaning of the dative when
added to verbal nominals is either causal or final, depending on whether
the nominal itself is factive or not, and depending on the nature of the
adjuncts within the subordinate clause.
-mAk in the ablative case, sometimes with possessive suffix before the
case suffix referring to the subject, also forms causal clauses, discussed
in section 4.635. Causal clauses can further have -dOk+In, which has
the -dOk form in the instrumental case, as kernel.
Comparative clause converbs are formed from nominal forms of verbs
by putting them in the equative case; their uses are discussed in section
4.632. In this function we find +åÑä added to the aorist form (already in
Orkhon Turkic), to -mIš and, in Manichæan sources, to -dOk+ with the
possessive suffix.
The construction -dOk+æç/è å è;ç , in which a postposition governs the
-dOk form with possessive suffix referring to subject, the sequence -mIš
è å èç and the aorist with è å èç are kernels of causal clauses and are
therefore discussed in section 4.635. The quite rare sequence -é äê ægè å èç
519 Johanson 1995: 318 quotes olor-dok+um+a (by him spelled differently) as example
for the phenomenon of personal converbs; this form is attested only once in the KT
inscription where the dative may be governed by a verb signifying ‘to rejoice (at)’
(making the -dOk form an action noun and not a converb) and once in the BQ
inscription in a damaged passage.
320 CHAPTER THREE
and the more common -ë=ìí%îïð;ñðò and -ëôóõð;ñðò , on the other hand,
forms final clauses, q.v. in section 4.636: The former are factive while
these latter ones are not. Other nominal forms of verbs governed by
postpositions, -mIš+tA or -dOk+dA with bärü, ken, ötrö or kesrä, have
temporal meaning.
Secondary converbs very often have their own subjects differing from
those of the main clauses. These are generally expressed by nominals in
the nominative case, as subjects in general are; subject nominals of
secondary converbs can, however, also be in the genitive case because
the kernels of such converb phrases are perfect participles which, as
nouns can govern the genitive case.
In general, the syntax of converbs and converb phrases is described in
section 4.63 and its subsections.
520 The aorist being a participle, the idea would be corroborated by the converbial use
to which ärkli and ärkän have been put, on the asumption that these are old -(X)glI and
-gAn participles respectively. This assumption is, however, vehemently opposed by
Johanson, presumably because he does not believe in the possibility of a neutralisation
between the phonemes /g/ and /k/ after /r/.
521 Two appear in text A; an additional one in TT VIII N 1 was reconstituted in the
reedition of that text in M
MORPHOLOGY 321
kim, whose main clause contains the element yok ‘there isn’t’. In
section 3.27 we quote an example where kim ‘who’ appears with a -sAr
form in a main clause with what appears to be dubitative meaning.
Some scholars from Thomsen 1916 to Doerfer 1993 have thought that
there also was a conditional suffix ‘-KMLON , which Tekin 1968: 186 takes
to be a gerund suffix. I have proposed in the previous section that the
Orkhon Turkic words which can be read in this way be interpreted as
vowel converb + equative suffix +KML , as a precursor to the vowel
converb + birlä construction, with which it is synonymous. There is no
need to posit obscure suffixes if the data can be interpreted successfully
by existing morphology.
The verb är- ‘to be’ is a fully conjugated regular copula; e.g. bay bar
ärtim ‘I was well to do’ or PEQ&RKSQ*TUWV*XZY[V*\ ïglïg töltäglig ärip ...
(BuddhUig 352-4) ‘the mats are spread out and ...’. UW 391b -409a
offers an exhaustive documentation of this verb’s uses in (non -
runiform) Uygur. A variant er- is found e.g. in HamTouHou 18,2 and 6.
Forms of är- may have been unstressed, like e.g. the forms of i- in
Turkish; one indication for this is the contraction with nä in n(ä)rgäy
(YE 41,8, runiform script), where the interrogative pronoun is sure to
have borne full stress. Its positive aorist ärür is rather rare in the
inscriptions, appearing once to refer to the future and in two other
instances in a set phrase. In Uygur, positive sentences with non-verbal
predicates unmarked for tense, aspect or mood often have ärür (e.g. bo
mäni] ä] T^=RT&_`VSa.Q&R'Qbdc*X"e*X ‘This is my last existence’), but sentences
without verbal copula are also well attested; cf. section 4.31. är- is used
in various analytical verb phrases; forms coming (or presumably
coming) from är- as c*X1T&_4fgc*X=_ RK and ärsär have become particles while
ärü ärü is used adverbially. ärmiš is added to sentences to express
indirectivity.
bol- ‘to become’ is also a copula of sorts; it implies that the subject
undergoes a change or a transformation in the course of, or related to
the event being referred to; e.g. xagan bol- ‘to become a ruler’, kul bol-
‘to become a slave’, yagï bol- ‘to start hostilities’, yok bol- ‘to perish’
and the like. añ(ï)g hSijX"e&RKeUke.imlnUkokQb (M I 6,18) signifies (in its
context) ‘It has been a great pleasure’: If one has ‘become’ something
in the past, one still feels the results; in this sense, bol- can, in the
constative preterite, convey post-terminal states. bol- can also signify
‘to ripen or to grow’: bo tuturkan yal]Q.prq"bBVi`V*\1st^.UuoWcvh&TwlnUkQ*XIfxV*\ ïn
MORPHOLOGY 323
yWz|{.}*{.~*'{.bolmaz
[oron]ta
~(HTs
'&III}D488-9)
v{=‘This
O'rice
=grows
jW{...1only
in *{=the
*country
' u¡ofu
meaning and it is attested to this day beside the less lexical one.
‘Becoming’ is a content belonging to actionality: Sequences of lexical
verb plus + bol- are described in section 3.251. When bol- follows -mIš
participles, however, the phrase has a resultative content which is
aspectual; see section 3.26. -gAlI bol- expresses ability, a category
discussed in section 3.253. One difference between är- and bol- and
other auxiliaries like kal-, tur-, yorï- or bar- is that the others are used
as auxiliaries only when combined with lexical verbs, whereas är- and
bol- have just been shown to be in use by themselves as well.
Moreover, the lexical meaning of those other verbs is sometimes quite
different from their meaning as auxiliaries, which is not the case with
är- and bol-. Thirdly, other actionality auxiliaries are linked with
converbs and not participles, whereas the verb forms with which bol-
can be linked are participles and verbal nouns such as -¢¤£¥1¦ , -gAn,
- § ¨[©=ª`¥1¦ or the aorist.
There is a dream recounting mode characterised by verb phrases
consisting of the aorist plus bolur, e.g.: tüšämiš tüllä{r}in523 öp sakïn[ïp
ïn«.¬$®k¯±°®k¯8²[³&´¤µ¶¬·k®k¸*¹'·k¸.º¼»*´"»&¹'·k¸*½¾²[¯=´¿'À®k³Á"À´v»·k¸*´1ÃÄÀÅO½¸® ï waxšiki
ünüp barïr bolur. bašïmtakï etiglig tokïrïm yuplunup yerdä tüšär bolur.
agzïmtakï üstün altïn tišlärim tüšär bolur. ätözümtäki tonum etigim
yokadur bolur (MaitH XIII 4r4-9) ‘She remembers the dreams she
dreamt and says the following: The golden throne falls to the ground.
The house spirit goes away. The adorned bun on my head disintegrates
and falls to the ground. The upper and lower teeth in my mouth fall off.
The dresses and adornments on my body disappear’. Other dreams are
characterised in the same manner in lines 5 r1-4, 5-8 and 9-12 of the
passage. Similarly in a dream of Xuanzang: ät’özin ketärü täzgürür
»·k¸&´1ÃƹÀ«.ÀÇ®WÀSÈ1º[³&´ÊÉ"À´Ë²[ÌBÀ|»·Æ½&Í
Á¤Í·ÎEÀ*´uϬÌB´"¸¾²[¬*½ ïn kälip “yarlïkazun
ayagka tägimlig” tep teyür bolur. montag tüšäyü yatur ärkän ... (HTs X
549-50) signifies ‘He becomes reticent; the more he does so, (the more)
those persons keep coming to him and saying “Will his honour deign to
...”. While he was lying and dreaming in this way, ...’.
ol ‘that’ can stand for the agent with verbs which are neither in the 1 st
nor in the 2nd person. Sometimes, its only task seems to be the assertion
of the nexus between subject and predicate; in that function it can truly
be called a copula (as the 3rd person pronoun serves as copula in
523 Here and in a few subsequent passages I use such brackets to mark part of a word
which I consider to have been inadvertently omitted by the scribe.
324 CHAPTER THREE
Hebrew and Arabic). It can, however, also denote existence. See section
4.3 and Tuguševa 1986 for details.
While positive sentences with nominal predicate get either forms of
är-, bol- etc., or ol or nothing at all to indicate the nexus between
subject and predicate, negative sentences can have only verbal forms,
ärmäz etc., to correspond to Turkish Ð'ÑÒÔÓÕ and the like. ärmäz is
extensively documented in the UW entry for är- and in UW 445-6.524 A
couple of details are worth highlighting. An example for a double
negative is näÖØ×kÙ× Ú`Û*ÜÕkÛ*ÝÞBÛSßáà*â1ÞBàSß (Abhi A 144a3) ‘It absolutely has
to be grasped’. Then ther e are tag question type constructions; here a
rhetorical question addressed to the king who is the object of the verb:
elig bägig ölüm madar agzïntïn bultumuz ärmäz mü? (U III 69,14)
‘Haven’t we gotten the king from (out of) the jaws of death?’. 525 ärmäz
is used for negating verb forms also when a proposition is to be stated
to be untrue; e.g.: burun til ätöz ärklig alïr ärmäz ïraktakï atkangug
(Abhi B 77b13) ‘It is not the case that the smelling, taste and tactile
senses grasp phenomena at a distance’.
Also worth mentioning is the pro-verb-phrase function in elliptic
clauses: In ÞBà*ÝãÓ
ÝäÓ å)Ù×kÕ ï biltäæ&çgèéêkëíìWîïÔç
ð'ñ&òBóôî*ðõ:ðî*öíëìkê ï bilmädäæç
ärmäz (U II 41,14) ‘I want to become a thankful person; by no means a
thankless one’, e.g., ärmäz in fact stands for a 1st person verb. In
birdämlig tanuklamakïg adïnlar ärmäz yanturu käntü özläri ök bulurlar
(Abhi A 36b3) ‘The absolute evidence, in turn, they find only
themselves; others do not’ ärmäz stands for the plural content of
*bulmazlar. Similarly anïö÷ç æç ð'ìWîwø`î*ðîZùçú impat bulmïšlar ärsär olar
äšidgäli bolurlar; näöØû*ü ïnlar ärmäz (BT III 738) ‘If there are among
them such as have received ordination, they can hear it; others by no
means’. There are further examples for this use in UW 406 (§28); in all
these cases Turkish would have used ü'ýþÔçWê .
bar ‘there is’ and yok ‘there isn’t’ fill tasks belonging to the copula in
some other languages (like English); they are dealt with in section 4.31.
In the following examples yok is used for negating
adjectives, where
one would expect ärmäz instead: îìuÿ.ñ*óôìkî ç ñæSñ*ó ìWû ö adïnæ ïg yok
524 ärmäz is here made into an entry; the motive for doing this seems, however, to
come from German: I do not find any lexicalization in the examples quoted. Nor do I
find any of the instances quoted in § b) to have the meaning “ -los”, one of the meanings
proposed in that paragraph.
525 Some more such instances are mentioned in UW 401-2 (§18a of the entry). The
sentence I have quoted appears there as “ bultumuz ärmäz mü biz”, but biz in fact
belongs to the beginning of the next sentence: The speakers in that passage, trying to
convince the king not to go to a certain place, are proposing to him to go there
themselves instead.
MORPHOLOGY 325
526 The adjective-forming suffix +lXg added to bir uguš ‘one clan’.
326 CHAPTER THREE
turur can sometimes express existence, e.g.: okïsar män ol bitig i\]^4_7`
ol künki biziacbd'e4b(fDgIhi jh\]Dke(lRmVno^P_"makpqbdJg7bBr_ ïnlïglarnïatsbu ï turur
(Suv 6,13) ‘When I read it, there were in that writing the words of
creatures, mainly bovines, sheep and pork, which we had intended to
slaughter that day at our meal’; kamag sansar ortosïnta sab atlïg ü\v ïa
ulug mïa<nwiJ_x]^\hynwi<sJkug7bDiz_"kiJkig7bi{|mg h\}v ïa~kDg"kjv ïa<nwisJkDug7bi
otrasïnta \bDvcqkeu] rkDgIkdc_"kiki{\bDvcqkeu] rkDgIkdcmD_i'btnwi]^4_7`zvGb_ nbe4wJd
uluš turur. matyadeš uluš otrasïnta ketumadi balïk ärür (MaitH X 4r11-
16) ‘In the middle of the whole of sam
' there are 3000 great
thousand-worlds called ‘earth’. In the middle of those 3000 great
thousand-worlds there is the country called DcD4 . In the middle
of the country of DcD there is I4<DI@E D : ¢¡Z£¥¤I¦4§
¨y©"ªDª« ª ª «"© © ¨
§ ¬D®¯¤x¦4§°¬±D£¤I²Z³µ´ ¦³ §R
§R¶E¤I¦4§·° ¤³¸¬®$¹(§¤I± J¤"º» ,¼y½¾¦4§
¿ ¿¢« © ¿ ¨ ¨
R¶V¶BÀ§Y§JÁ £¶ÃÂY¦³<¤I¦4§Y¶ § ħ²ÅÂ(£¤Æ¶¤Z¬À¬(¤Z¬Ç¹(§J¤I± J¤"º@ȤI¦4§K£¢ §G¬D®
which was mentioned earlier. This explains why the first three
sentences end in turur while the last one has ärür.
In isig öz alïmÉ ïlarï birlä turušur osuglug turur (Suv 18,13) ‘It seems
as if he is struggling with his angels of death’ the struggle is described
as going on at the time of speech. This last instance appears to come
from the use of tur- to express actionality (see section 3.251).
3.3. Adjuncts
The term ‘adjunct’ is in fact a syntactic one, not one referring to a class
of lexemes. Adjunct phrases and adjunct clauses are adjuncts, as are e.g.
nouns in the equative, the instrumental or the similative case. This
section will not deal with all these, however, but with lexemes which
are adjuncts by themselves and not by virtue of a case suffix. Lexical
adjuncts and interjections have neither the nominal categories of
number, possession etc., nor the verbal categories, and are hard to
define by morphological shape. Adjuncts do not refer to entities, nor do
they qualify heads serving for such reference; they are not normally
used within noun phrases (postpositions govern noun phrases but are
not within them).
It does happen that adjuncts get case suffixes, as azu+ÉÊ ‘on the other
hand, otherwise’ etc. with the equative or öËÌ +n ‘separately’, birök+in
‘however’ and birlä+n ‘together’ with the instrumental. The equative
and the instrumental are, however, the foremost adverbial cases in Old
Turkic, and here just come to underline the adjunct status of the
elements: The meanings of the quoted elements hardly differ from those
of their bases, azu, öË4ÌÎÍ birök and birlä. The instrumental case suffix,
MORPHOLOGY 327
527 basa basa has been lexicalised with the meaning ‘repeatedly’.
MORPHOLOGY 329
528 Especially because its meaning is not causative: See OTWF 403 (with
bibliography) and the discussion in that work of the various petrified converb forms.
330 CHAPTER THREE
from the language’s own point of view, however, but a merely partial
distinction between adverb and postposition. That kesrä can also be
considered a conjunction has to do with the fact that clause
subordination is, in Old Turkic, often effected in a rather nominal way,
making an element a postposition on the syntactic and a conjunction on
the functional level.
3.31. Adverbs
67r11.531 +dXn nominals, üstün, ©ª*«©¬ and taštïn, kedin and ö ® ¯¬ , are
related to these five. ya ïrtï ‘afresh, anew’, attested in OTWF 798, is
probably not formed with this suffix but was a petrified converb from
an unattested +(A)r- derivate from ya ï ‘new’. I take tašïrtï and tašïrtïn,
attested in QB 3115, 5547, 5936 and 6259, to have been simplified
from taštïrtï because of the three ts.
Time adverbs such as temin ‘shortly before or afterwards’ or ašnu
‘before, earlier’ (originally the vowel converb of ašun- ‘to hurry’) are a
group by themselves, showing functional affinity to postpositions like
ötrö
°±.²±³
when used absolutely to signify ‘thereupon’ (e.g. in Suv 194,16).
‘eventually, at some point in time’, is of pronominal origin. This
is an indefinite adverb, usually appearing with temporal clauses; some
examples are quoted in section 3.134. In ´*µ.¶µ.·,¸.¹»ºj¸¼h¸¶¹?µ½¿¾ ïdïlxïmka
tägdilär ärsär ol yultuz täprämädin šük turdï ‘When those Magi
eventually reached Bethlehem, ...’ (U I 6, Magi, a Christian text) or in
ÀÁ.ÂÁÃÄÀÅ ÆÅ ÇLÈIÀ*ÁÃÉ»ÊÂÁÄËÌ^Æ<Ë.ÌÎÍ
(Suv 362,14) ‘when, eventually, his
wish reaches fulfillment …’ it is used with the conditional form; in the
following the verb is finite: Ï*Ð.Ñ*ÐÒUÓÔ.Ô&ÕFÐGÖ × ï aya ïgaÑ ïn bultï, ötrö lovudi
xan üskintä utru turup … tokuz älig šlok sözlädi (BT I A1 9) ‘At some
stage V.T. found his beating board, then stood up in front of the
emperor L. and … recited 49 Ø Ù Ú?ÛÜÝ ’.
A particle such as soka / suka ‘just’ turns out to have aspectual uses as
well (like English ‘just, right when’); see OTWF 381 for some
preliminary documentation.
It happens that adverbs are treated as nominals morphologically; from
the temporal adverb ašnu ‘earlier’, e.g., we have the case forms
ašnu+Þ*ß and ašnu+dïn bärü+ki (further expansion, +kI governing the
postpositional phrase). These and ašnu+sïn+ta are documented in the
UW, whose author for this reason takes ašnu to have gotten
nominalised. öàá +n and birlä+n are postpositions with the instrumental
case suffix, while the base of azu+Þß is a conjunction. Cf. also
basa+sïn+ta, yügärü+dä and azu+sïn+ta. this is not really a question of
this or that lexeme getting ‘hypostasiert’, to use Röhrborn’s term, but
rather of the structural fuzziness around adjuncts in general, as
discussed in the previous section.
3.32. Postpositions
532 íGîíGï is a postposition which governs what we have called clauses, functioning like
a conjunction meaning ‘because’ or ‘in order to’; cf. sections 4.635 and 4.636. Although
such units are clauses from the functional point of view and although they involve
predication, they still also have all the categories, and hence also all the characteristics,
of nominals. í<îðí<ï therefore has the meaning of a conjuction but in fact governs these
units exactly in the way and in the sense it governs other nominals.
533 Following Larry Clark’s Turkmen Grammar (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz) 1998.
534 Spelled thus and not as ïñ òGóõô .
535 The apparent consistent frontness of the possessive suffix must have been
secondary; note that monosyllabic nominal bases such as ït ‘dog’ also get fronted.
MORPHOLOGY 333
Still other postpositions come from nominals: üzä ‘over; by (the use
of), on the part of’ is apparently related to üstün ‘above’; alternately, it
may come from a noun attested only in the Codex Comanicus (and
possibly in Chuvash) with an obsolete variant of the dative case suffix
(thus T. Tekin) or directive-locative +rA with subsequent zetacism.
birlä ‘(together) with’ comes from bir ‘one’ with the adverbial suffix
+lA;536 in later Old Turkic sources, birlä can lose its /r/ and/or be
expanded with the instrumental suffix to give bi(r)län. ööY÷ +n is another
postposition expanded with the instrumental. The instrumental case
suffix is no doubt to be found also in ken ‘after’, which is related to
kedin, kesrä, kerü, keø and keø ä.537 In balïk taštïn ‘outside the town’, a
+DXn derivate (called ‘orientational’ and discussed in section 3.12)
governs a nominative as a postposition; further examples of +dXn
forms, governing the ablative, are mentioned in section 3.12. +rA
nominals such as öö ù<ú ‘before’, kesrä ‘after’ and ÷øLùGú ‘inside’ are also
locally relational like +dXn forms and govern noun phrases in the
locative or ( ÷øLùGú ) the nominative. osoglug ‘like’ is a +lXg derivate from
osog ‘manner’ (normally, e.g. in U II 41,20, used in a binome with yaö ,
a Chinese loan). yaö.û ïg, which comes from a base copied from Chinese,
has a very similar meaning and structure. täö.û÷ ü , which is also formed
with +lXg, is quantitative rather than qualitative. yaö.û ïg survives as a
postposition in Uzbek, täö.û÷ ü in Turkish (deö.ûFý > denli). Meaning, use
and distribution show that these three are not mere instances of a
complex +lXg construction but have fused and moved away from their
bases.
Most postpositions were originally vowel converbs, e.g. körö ‘with
respect to’, ötgürü ‘because of’, tapa ‘towards’ (e.g. inscriptional ø ÷þ
tapa yorï- ÿ
tap- ‘to find’), ašru, togru (e.g.
inscriptional kün togru sü! üšdüm ‘I fought throughout the day’, <
536 The function of this suffix is discussed in OTWF p.403-406. Tekin 1968: 110
thought that birlä was an -A converb from a denominal verb in ‘+l-’ derived from bir,
but there is no such denominal formative in Old Turkic. Gabain 1974: 136’s propos al of
an -A converb from *bir+i-l- is not possible either, as the coverb vowel of -(X)l- is not
/A/ but /U/. The idea, in Gabain 1974 par. 295, that bi(r)län comes from an -n converb
of a denominal verb ‘bir+lä-’ is also unacceptable, as no such verb is known, and as
bir+lä and bilän etc. are clearly variants of one and the same postposition.
537 Attempted etymological explanations for "$#%"$& ‘for; because of’ have assumed an
instrumental form, generally from '(# ‘tip, extremity’; '(# is, in fact, used in some such
function in Ottoman. Within such an hypothesis, the only way to account for the front
vowels would be to take )(*,+ ï+n with the possessive suffix before the instrumental to be
the source. The possessive suffix may have been fronted also when added to back-
harmony bases; one would assume it to have caused the fronting of the first syllable
when the form got fused. Backward fronting is found e.g. in bökün ‘today’ as well.
334 CHAPTER THREE
togur- ‘to cross’), utru ‘facing’, tägi ‘till’ . tuta < tut- ‘to hold’ attested
as postposition in Abhi, signifies ‘concerning’. tägrä ‘around’ is by
Gabain 1974 § 286 thought to come from a converb of täg-ür- ‘to
convey’, but the vowel converb of this stem is /U/ and not /A/ and the
meanings of the two are too far apart; the EDPT is probably right in
assuming the existence of another verb *tägir-, which must also have
served as base for tägirmi ‘round’ and tägirmän ‘mill’. Some
conjunctions (e.g. yana / yänä ‘again; moreover etc.’ from yan- ‘to
return’ ), adjectives and adverbs (e.g. ašnu ‘before’ < ašun- ‘to hurry’)
are lexicalised vowel converbs as well.
kudï ‘down’ (e.g. sälä- ä kudï yorïpan ‘marching down the S. river’
BQ E37) comes from kud- ‘to pour’, liquids always moving downward.
The form is not that of a converb, however, as that would be kuda;
rather, it belongs, like töni and yarašï, to the formation in -I, discussed
in OTWF 340-344. kudï ./10,23245/246879.:2;=<><?.A@=BDC EFHG I J%KLNMOPRQSJ
TULWVXM:VYJ
Z\[:]^`_a_b[cedbfgXhij?kSaHlmcnmco`kqpHrmsmcot[c`uvk?wnxUjzyU{`m}|3|3[]h~
m,]Rh\Z9[:]^
538 Gabain 1974 has iyin in §296 and iyä in §277, deriving both from the same verb iy-
translated as “folgen” in the former paragraph and “folgen, verfolgen, bedrängen” in the
latter. In §277 she also includes the phrase iyä basa which she translates as “ständig”.
The two readings both represent eyin, with implicit vowel in the instances quoted as iyä,
alef and $ looking identical in the texts in question. In the TT VI instance quoted,
‘iyä’ is found only in one ms. while another writes iyin, and in the U III instance ’YYYN
is added under the line. eyin is found spelled 9 times with e in
, $A
case in any other way, and onset e is never used in those texts to represent any other
vowel in word onset. I now no longer think that the first verb in the biverb ey- bas- is to
be read as ïy-, as against OTWF 602-3: The Tekin proposal for reading Tes E5 is in any
case too uncertain to make the difference. In ‘Bemerkungen zum lexikalischen
Sondergut des Uigurischen’, an unpublished lecture held at the Frankfurt VATEC
symposium (September 2002), K. Röhrborn expressed the view that eyin / iyin comes
from a misreading of ävin ‘grain; single hair’ by being part of a loan translation of a
Sanskrit expression; this seems unlikely to me, for reasons which cannot be detailed
here.
MORPHOLOGY 335
The border between converbs (of transitive verbs) and such among
them that have become postpositions is not always clear; the problem
for the linguist is that both govern noun phrases: Gabain 1974 § 273
and 278 and Tekin 1968: 163, e.g., consider aša and }U to be
postpositions signifying, respectively, ‘beyond’ and ‘beyond, across’.
The sentences which they quote, e.g. kögmän aša kïrkïz yeri ä tägi
s[ülädimiz] (BQ E 15) ‘We crossed the Sayan and campaigned all the
way to the land of the Kïrkïz’ and käm kH}b5¡ £¢v 1¤¥H¦¡§A¨ (BQ E 26)
©Aª¬«®¯
°±²±%«}³t´µX«·¶¬«¸X¹±%«$º¼»¸³½»¾\¿»¹¡À5¸«³Á»À»}¹¸±
´Â´µ«®Ã¹ÄÅÇÆÂÀH¹:È«·´µ«
impression that they are converbs and not postpositions. The examples
with
ÉÊHË
aš-a and tog-a refer to the crossing of mountain chains, those with
-ä to the crossing of rivers. Such words can be called postpositions
if they are lexicalised in a meaning in any way distinct from that of the
verb (e.g. tap- ‘to find’ vs. the postposition tapa ‘towards’) and if they
are also attested in a way which does not call for a subject. With öÌÍ
‘separate or distinct from’, there is a functional ambiguity as to
postpositional or adverbial function discussed in section 4.2 below.539
The common postposition sayu, presumably a petrified converb form
from the obsolete verb sa- ‘to denumerate, enumerate, recount’, serves
as a peculiar amalgam of ‘all’ with locativity; it signifies ‘to all, in all,
at all places’: uluš sayu balïk sayu kim bägläri … ärsär (TT VI 9) ‘In
all states, in a cities, … whoever are their rulers, …’. It is still in use in
languages so remote from each other as Yakut (ayï) and Krymchak and
finds its analogue in Mongolian büri. Like the other postpositions
governing the nominative, sayuÉÐÏas Ñ
well governs the accusative of
Ñ\Ò(Ó$ÔÕ
possessive suffixes; e.g. ay täÌÏÎÍ Í ‘on every day of the Moon
God (Xw 301).
tägimlig ‘worthy of ...’ is derived with the formative -(X)mlXg dealt
with in OTWF section 3.322. Beside the common ayagka tägimlig
‘venerable’, instances such as alkïška tägimlig ‘praiseworthy’, iki
didimka tägimlig, ‘worthy of the two crowns’, mïÌ Ö×
Ø1ÙÚ}Ú}ÙÜÛ¡Ù}× ÝAØÂÞÇÝ ×
‘worth a thousand praises’ quoted in OTWF show that Uygur had
created a postposition of this form, governing the dative.
539 There does not appear to be any grammatical or functional ambiguity concerning
alku ‘all’, mentioned as a postposition in Gabain 1974 § 272: As shown in its UW entry
and elsewhere, it is always an adjective (sometimes used adverbially, like many
adjectives) and never a postposition; it seems more likely to have come from a
contraction of the verbal nominal *alk-gu than from a vowel converb (as stated in the
UW), because the converb vowel of alk- is /A/.
336 CHAPTER THREE
540 ø$ù%ú}ù,û
‘to me’ üýNþý,ÿ ‘to you’ in Anatolian dialects and in Kazakh may possibly be
contractions of the normal datives ba a and sa a with this element; I know of no other
explanation for these forms.
MORPHOLOGY 337
3.33. Conjunctions
conjunction; while the two uses clearly have a common source (see
OTWF 340 for an etymology which accords with both meanings), these
should probably be considered different elements synchronically. takï is
not attested in Orkhon Turkic.
yana was originally the vowel converb of yan- ‘to return’; it appears
with back harmony in Orkhon Turkic. Subsequently, in Uygur, it
changed to yänä and yenä; yänä ök, e.g. in TT X 17, shows the new
harmony class. It became an adverb signifying ‘again’ before it also
developed a conjunctive function, then bearing the meaning ‘moreover’
(also in combinations such as yenä ök or yenä ymä).
azu ‘or’ ap pears already in Orkhon Turkic azu bo savïmda igid bar
gu? (KT S 10) ‘Or is there anything false in these my words?’ In
KöktüTurf TM 342 1 r 1-4, a runiform ms., there are two consecutive
sentences both starting with azu; in such cases the translation should be
‘either ... or’. See the UW entry for Uygur documentation. azu cannot
be the petrified converb of az- ‘to stray’, as stated in UW 324a, as that
is aza (cf. UW 319a for Uygur evidence for this). /0+12/ (also
documented there) has a similar meaning and use as azu and no doubt
comes from it. Cf. also azusïnta ‘beside; on its side’ (attested only in
HTs) and the even rarer azukï ‘secondary, subsidiary’.
ärmäsär, the negative conditional form of the copula, serves as an
adversative conjunction with meanings such as ‘otherwise’ or
‘however’; examples are given in UW 445a. In USp 24 we find bol-ma-
sa with the same meaning and function.
In Uygur, ap practically always appears in pairs of stretches, where it
signifies ‘both ... and’; in longer chains its meanin g can be given as ‘as
well as’. See the UW for this documentation; in many of the instances
ap is followed by the particle ymä. The UW also quotes one sequence
of two instances in U II 4,2 where, after a sentence with a negative
verb, the two aps signify ‘neither ... nor’. In the UW the U II passage
appears as the only example for this latter meaning, but we find it also
in Wettkampf541 17-18: bo tört savda adïn tusulmagay, ap alp
ärdämä34 05/7698+0+:<;=?>/@A: ïk atï3 ïz ‘Nothing beside these three words
will serve you, neither your bravery nor your high-bred race-winning
horse’. ap is used also in Qarakhanid sources; there, however, all the
instances are negative: The DLT has double ap signifying ‘neither ...
nor; in one QB and one Middle Turkic example, there is single ap
following a negative verb and introducing a positive verb form, to be
translated as ‘nor’.
541 Published after the appearance of the fascicle of the UW containing the entry for
ap; the positive translation offered by the editors does not suit the context.
MORPHOLOGY 339
The source of runiform BCD ïp542 and Uygur ïnD ïp and the
documentation for BCD ïp are discussed in section 3.132. The examples
for BCD ïp all show it at the beginning of sentences but not of
paragraphs, preceded by -dI or -mIš in the historical narrative of the
inscriptions but by a nominal sentence in the epilogue of the IrqB.
BCD ïp always signifies ‘having done that; thereupon’. This is also the
meaning of ïCD ïp in the following passages: ïnDBFEGBH ïntïm ... mini ...
dendar kïlgay siz tep. ïnD ïp amtïkatägi mäniI HJ IKL<KM CN IPOQ CBC M BR
(TT II,1 40) ‘I thought you would ... make me into an elect. As a result
of that my heart has not calmed down till now’. TT II,1 is Manichæan;
another Manichæan instance: In tümkä ärdim ärsär ymä ïnD ïp yana
kamgak käntirkä tayaklïgïn köntülmiš täg boltum ärdi (HTs VII 1974)
‘Even though I was foolish, I had thereupon again become like the
kamgak plant which gets upright by leaning upon hemp’ the main
clause
STUV+TXWofY[Za\ Zconcessive
U]S ^ _`S ^(a"^$\ Zconstruction
U]S ^ _b V is introduced byUd^fïne<g D ïp. amtï anï
ïn ïp tükäl bilgä täc c risi burxan
kac ïmïznï körür biz, no[mïn äšidür] biz (TT IVB 23) ‘Now we repent
and admit all that. As a result of this we now see our father the perfectly
wise Buddha, king V of kings, and [listen to his tea]ching’. T\ Vha(TijhkYT a<e
In M I 16,15 ïn ïphappears
^mln^mlda(giZP oT[_p V to signify ‘similarly’: ï uzlar
ädsiz näc ïn ïp ärli uzuntonluglï näqrsrt(r[uwvyxzA{|t(r}~dv
sqv$z+rGr~
r}]r t<+Grv uwv$[tA+v${v uA~A ‘Just as e.g.
craftsmen can by no means carry out their craft without material,
similarly men and women can by no means carry out the shameless
activity by bodily love as long as they do not use the power of the
fivefold god’. In TT I 79 ïnq ïp appears to signify ‘because’: busuš
kadgu bälgüsi ä} $<GG ïn ïp ädgü kïlïn ïg ešlärkä ïnanmagïn+$
‘The marks of sorrow haunt you; because, as long as you don’t trust
helpful friends [you will not get rid of] (anxiety)’. Sometimes ïn ïp
signifies ‘hereby’ or ‘in spite of this’; the EDPT (mentioning a number
of additional examples) also gives the meanings ‘this being so; so much
for that; on the other hand; but’ and ‘then’.
The adverb udu ‘following, after’ has been derived from the verb ud-
‘to follow’, which did not survive in Old Turkic. In Tuñ 55 we find udu
used as a conjunction: elteriš xagan kazganmasar udu bän özüm
kazganmasar … ‘If king Elteriš kagan had not won and if I myself had
not won (either), …’.
542 In Saddh 32 (context fragmentary) the transliteration gives ’NCYP but should be
corrected; the transcription correctly writes G¡7 ¢¤£ (see facs.). By origin this word and
¥ A¡ ïp appear to be pronoun – verb hybrids.
340 CHAPTER THREE
543 Living on in this meaning to this day in Sayan Turkic and probably eliminated
everywhere else due to its phonic similarity with the noun signifying ‘vulva’. (In Proto -
Turkic this noun may have signified ‘mouth’ and not ‘vulva’, to judge by its Mongolic
cognate.) Old Turkic amtï ‘now’ is no doubt formed from the same base with the adverb
forming suffix +tI.
342 CHAPTER THREE
3.34. Particles
544 Johanson 1994: 177 finds the view expressed therein unconvincing but has no
alternative explanation. ärkän cannot be a converb of är- ‘to be’, as expressly stated in
UW 433, as no converb suffix -kän is attested in any other word.
MORPHOLOGY 343
ol atnï tutïl ‘Hold that very horse!’ and $\\ ï urgïl ‘Hit the target
on the nose!’.
soka, for which more than a dozen examples are listed in OTWF 381,
appears to have a similar meaning: Its Chinese equivalent signifying
‘geradewegs, genau, direkt’ is mentioned in the note to ZiemeLegenden
p.152 l.8 (ms. filling a lacuna in Suv 8,1). Some of the instances have it
together with ugrayu; in some others it is used for stating that
something happens ‘right that very moment’: ( suka sözläyü turur ärkän
(AbitAnk 68) ‘right while speaking’. soka may come from sok- ‘to hit,
beat’ (or from suk- ‘to thrust in’, in which case it would be suka).
Unlike $ and kAn it is not added to time adverbs.
kAn is added to adverbial temporal expressions and appears to give
them some meaning such as the one which ‘just’ has when qual ifying
‘now’ or ‘then’. We find it with amtï ‘now’ and ašnu ‘before’
(examples for both in the UW), ertä ‘early in the morning’, ö
‘before’ (cf. OTWF 62) and as ya ïrtu kan (BuddhUig I 227) ‘recently’.
Then we have N¡.¢d£ ïn$ kan yarïn y(a)r’udï kün tu gdï (M I 6,19) ‘In
a short while545 dawn broke and the sun rose’; ¡.¢d£ ïn$ is a hybrid
from an+$ with the temporal -¤¥§¦¨§© converb meaning ‘until’ with
perfective verbs, and clearly formed in analogy with that converb: kAn
is attested with a regular -¤¥ª¦¨ A form in tašïkgïn¨$«¬«¦ ‘just until (you)
get out’ (fragment quoted in a n. to BT V 521). The temporal form in
-mAzkAn dealt with in section 4.633 may also have been formed with
this particle (though -mAz is not in temporal adverbial use as the words
in the scope of kAn quoted in this section are). If one accepts this
derivation in spite of the problem, one can not exclude that ärkän
‘while’ comes from *ärür kän by syncopation and assimilation of the
two /r/s.
The emphatic particle mat is added to personal (sen in the QB),
demonstrative (bolarnï ®°¯~±³²µ´"¶N·I¸· bo 15,57, andag in the DLT) and
interrogative (nätäg and kim+i in the QB) pronouns and to verb forms
(three in -gAlI, three in -dI and once the future in -gA in the DLT). It is
always spelled together with them and may have followed vowel
harmony, as assumed by the editors. If it did, it should be related to the
second syllable of ävät ~ äwät ~ yämät ‘yes’ (DLT). This may link it to
bat ‘quickly and for sure’ (DLT fol.161, TT VII 28,28 and 37, H I 23,
39 and 43), which stands before the verb.546
545 The translation is tentative and follows ¹Jº"»S¹ meaning ‘a little bit’.
546 Words of Turkic origin do not have onset /m/ except when the following consonant
is a nasal, but another clitic starting with /m/ is mU. mat might, on the other hand, be
related to Mongolic ¼¾½ ¿ À"Á (pronounced with [t]) ‘certainly, really’, attested from the
MORPHOLOGY 345
A particle ÂÃ is in Suv 34g,22, BT VIII A 132 and 276 and BT XIII
3,29 in conditional clauses added to the particle birök with no
noticeable difference in meaning or function;547 in section 3.4 we find
that ÂÃ is also in Mait added a number of times to presentative muna. In
both cases Â"Ã is spelled together with the preceding element.548
äÄ ‘most’ is preposed to noun phrases, e.g. in äÄ öÄ rä ‘the foremost’;
it is often spelled with two alef. See the UW entry concerning its uses
in Uygur. It appears to have joined some words following it in closer
juncture: äÄÆÅÇ ‘lately, recently’ with äÄÈÅÇ +ün and äÄÉÅÇ +ki are all
spelled as single words, as quoted in UW 389a. Further cf. äÄ mïntïn
‘even’, which is often spelled as one word, documented in UW 388;
note also that the very common äÄ ilki ‘the very first’ is already in KT
E32 spelled as Ä l2k2I, without the I which would have appeared before
the l2 if the scribe had taken äÄ to be a word by itself. Its synonym äÄ
baš+la-yu+kï also got fused.
The phrase äÄ*Ê ïntïn ‘even’ should probably also be considered a
particle; see the UW for examples: It either qualifies sentences or
clauses or (with a meaning similar to Turkish preposed ta) phrases.
ayï and kodï as in ayï kodï öpkäsi kälip ... (HtV 287) ‘he got
exceedingly furious’ are in tensifying particles. ayï ‘very’ appears to be
shortened from ayïg ‘bad’, as words like ‘terribly’ in many languages
get downgraded to mere intensifying meaning. kodï should not be
confused with kudï ‘down’.
Secret History on and in modern Mongolic languages (and borrowed into Turkic
Karaim). The ultimate source appears to have been Sogdian, which has an element m’t
(with long a) ‘thus’; this is exactly the meaning given to mat Ë"ÌÎÍÐÏ Ñ ÒJÓ,Ô Õ Ö×0ØÙÚ ÛJܧÝjÞß.à!Ö
the semantic development of Latin sic > Romance si. bat must have been created at a
stage when onset /m/ was unacceptable. One or two runiform instances of bat are not
very clear. When Classical Mongol ’X’ reflects the pronunciat áãâä1åIæ ç!è
é§ê~ëé,ìJìdíjî$êðï î
ñóòôõ~òö÷øõhù ú$ñ÷û,úüSõSñóý0ù ÷NùñMþ"ÿ!òúdòJúdüSõ
ûSñ
!"#%$'&)(+* *, -$
not the case with this word; modern usage may, however, be a case of pelling
pronunciation, which also sometimes happens.
547 In Maue 1996 14,7, a b
.*/102$3"
44& 56 789:;6 appears in fragmentary context.
Ottoman <>=)<?A@%B , which is mentioned in the note to BT XIII 3,29, was borrowed from
Persian and has concessive meaning in both of those languages (cf. Turkish gerçi).
However, this opens the possibility that Uygur C B was borrowed from some Iranian
language, where it could have meant ‘what’; cf. Latin siqui, siquid, siquidem., whose
second syllable is a cognate of Persian C B .
548 The particles C B in the Mongolian Secret History and DE in later Mongolian (best
dealt with in Street 1984) differ somewhat from Uygur F3G and F#H (the latter discussed
below) both in distribution and function, but may still be related: Uygur F>G appears in
conditional clauses while Mongolian FH became part of a concessive verb form. Cf. the
adversative or concessive particles F;I in Khakas and F ï in Shor. Uygur F>G and
Qarakhanid F#H differ in shape, function and distribution and cannot be equated.
346 CHAPTER THREE
All types of negation are intensified by preposing idi ‘by (no) means,
(not) at all’: idi ok+suz ‘with no interruption at all’; türk bodun tämir
kapïgka ... tägmiš idi yok ärmiš ‘It had never been the case before that
the United Nation549 had reached the Iron Gate’ and idi yorïmazun ‘by
no means must they roam around’ are all three from the Orkhon
inscriptions and there are many more inscriptional examples. From
Uygur e.g. siziJLKNM-OPM1QRMTSUVKWYXLZLM[Z)\]SUV\^O ï (HTs VII 1802) ‘has certainly
not remained unknown to you’. Gabain deals with this particle in the n.
to l. 70 of her 1935 edition of a portion of HTs; she quotes a number of
instances, some of which show that idi need not be adjacent to the
negative element. She there spells the word as ‘ïdï’ proposing to
connect it etymologically with the verb ïd- ‘to send’. This is rather
unlikely, as the spelling in runiform sources shows d2. The only place
where idi appears without an explicit negative is in a description of how
the Uygur ruler Bügü xan made Manichæism his state religion. He there
(TT II,1 44) says (among other things) ... ät’öz mä JRM_`M1ababacZdX`e`f^UhgKiM-OPM
j^k)j
eVWlMbmPM-ZnQ^o]Spg ï ‘... bodily pleasures ... became quite worthless in my
eyes’. This appears to be negative by sense, in that yinik and especially
j^k)j
e reflect a negative value judgement.
näJ strengthens negations, signifying ‘(not) any’: e.g. näJ ZLMrqlM-m k
bermädök ‘he is said not to have given any answer’; näJ buJ ug yok
‘you have no trouble at all’. It can also signify ‘by (no) means’, as in
näJso^S\utvUh\^UM-Z)\sZ ïz ük fLmwQ j _\um]UV\)e)S\ut (TT X 523) ‘They are by no
means sorry about the girl Mamika’. I take this to come from näJ
‘thing’, 550 discussed in section 3.134. No other originally Turkic words
(except nä ‘what’, the presumable source of the two näJ ) begin with
/n/. HTs VII 636 has näJM-OPM^aba-aWYouZ , linking two particles. In Manichæan
texts näJ gets contracted with (interrogative-) indefinite pronouns:
kimkäJ < kim+kä näJ is attested in ManErz 265,24 and, as kimkäJ
be[rmäz] m(ä)n ‘I don’t give it to anybody’ in DreiPrinz 71. k(ä)ntüni
kimiJxm]K^JxZdXLtUVKde ‘nobody can see him in any way’ (DreiPr inz 14)
appears to show the particle doubly, once with and once without
contraction. The meaning of nä ärsär ‘any’ is similar, e.g. in muJ ar nä
ärsär yazok yok (PañcÖlm 23) ‘He does not have any sins’. Other
preposed (probably a bit more lexical) strengtheners are ärtiJ f)yR\um k \uZWz\
and ar(ï)tï. The last two strengthen negations, as in burxan kutïlïg
549 I do follow the semantic interpretations of Tezcan 1991 but there seems to be no
doubt that the author was here using the term türk bodun to refer to the state in the name
of which he was speaking.
550 As French rien ‘nothing’ comes from Latin rem ‘thing’ (accusative) and Latin nihil
‘nothing’ from ne hilum ‘not a thread’.
MORPHOLOGY 347
{}|}~|}#bR
u]`u{4z,YV
ïnmatïn ... iši ä ... arïtï armadï (U IV A272-3)
‘Not leaving off a bit in his wish for Buddhadom, he did not at all get
tired ... of his task ...’.
ã^ä]å`ã
æVã
‘so much’ (normally spelled as ãuä]å)ã^æVã ) is documented in the
UW, in one instance in correlation with ç äRå`è^æVè / ïnå)ã^æVã ; so is the less
common ãuä]å)é^êpãëYéÀæhã ‘just in that way’, attested thrice in M I and also
spelled as one word. I have met nämä, which replaced nä in many
modern Turkic languages, only in a very late Tantric text, BeidaFu T1
r2, A. Yakup, ‘A new cakrasam ì¾í`î^ïî text in Uighur’, Kyoto University
Linguistic Reseaarch 19(2000): 43-58; an apparently instrumental form
nämän was, however, read already in HTsBiogr 27 and 54. Cf. also
nägümä ‘any sort of’ (Adams 56,29) < nä+(A)gU ymä. ol-ok ma (M II
11,8) ‘that as well’ shows that the particle (O)k precedes the particle
(y)mä when both are to be added to a stem.
In a letter (UigBrief C), reflecting spoken language, we find mä once
after amtï ‘now’ (which is, in fact, deictic like the pronouns); amtï ma
also appears once in another late text in TT VII. In the same letter we
also have it twice after nouns, once signifying ‘either’ and once ‘and’:
aka enilär mä barïp körüp kalmaz (9) ‘the elder and younger brothers
do not come to see us and stay either’; yerni mä karï kišini unïtmïš
bolgay sän (12) ‘you will have forgotten home and your old people’.
OTWF 422 (footn. 9) proposed reading ðdñ^ò`ó%ôöõVó÷îuï ïyur m(ä)n in
HamTouen 29,17-18, where the editor reads ðdñuò)ó%ôÄõvøóùdú÷pîuï ïyur m(ä)n.
The latter is less likely as -(X)p converbs and the superordinate verb
normally share their subject and there would be no reason to repeat the
pronoun. Another instance of mA added to an -(X)p converb is ätäkim
yadïp ma yükü[nür män] ‘I bow, spreading my skirt.’ 551
birök, signifying ‘however’ or corresponding to non -temporal ‘now’,
is an adversative connective mostly found in sentences with the verb
form in -sAr; e.g. in correlative constructions: kim birök täû ïü
burxannaûþý ü-ïÿô,øîù]îuð)ò)î ÷ó û ü úuõ ý ü ü-ï óuïóuï
ð)ó ü ô
ü ý óPð)ó
sözläzün (U III 29,16) ‘Anybody who knows even as little as one line of
the divine Buddha’s teaching, however, let him come and tell (it) to the
king’. A number of examples , many of them at the beginning of
clauses, are cited in sections 4.64 and 4.65 below. In MaitH XV 3v4 it
appears with instrumental suffix, as birökin.552
551 What was read as xanma in M III nr. 35 r7, v6 and v8 was by Zieme 1969: 130
taken to contain this element and translated as “auch der Xan”. The context of these
forms is quite fragmentary, however, and Le Coq attempted no translation. xan(ï)ma ‘to
my khan’ or xan m(ä)n ‘I am the khan’ are possible readings, since the fragment is
written in Uygur script.
552 This is clearly visible on the facsimile. If there are no additional examples for such
an
instrumental
form of this particle, it may nevertheless possibly be an error for
, with the element mentioned in the previous section.
MORPHOLOGY 349
takï is both a conjunction (see section 3.33 for that) and a particle: It is
the latter when its content is temporal, with meanings like ‘yet, still’: In
sä räm takï bütmäzkän ... ‘when the monastery was not yet completed’
(Mait 52r19-22) and an bitigdä savï takï adïrïp barmayok ol; (Suv
18,14 + a Berlin fr.) ‘In the court register her case has not yet reached a
decision’ the verb is negative, in amtïka tägi takï bar ärür ‘it still exists
even till now’ in BT I A 2 4) positive. As a particle it can further qualify
gradable adjectives adding the meaning ‘more’ (or, with the elative -
comparative suffix +rAk, ‘even’ as in antada takï yegräk ‘even better
than that’) , stressing the elative. The bi-adverb ikiläyü takï signifies
‘again’ when preposed to noun phrases.
ärsär, the conditional of the verb är- ‘to be’, has evolved into a
topicalising particle; see section 4.4. It can signify ‘as for’ or
‘concerning’ and is m ostly added to noun phrases (including nominals,
pronouns, numerals, participles); examples are given in UW 406b-407a.
That it is a particle can best be seen in an example sich as the following,
where the accusative is governed by sakïn- ‘to think’: bo tä ri kïzlarnï
ärsär birär yüzlüg ... sakïngu ol (BT VII A 666) ‘As for these divine
girls, one should imagine them as having a (different) face each, ...’. As
a particle, ärsär does not appear to show any inflexion; ärsärlär in BT
V 164 cannot be translated as “was sie betrifft”, e.g., as the editor does.
tïlïB a korkup ïnCDFEGD<HJI ïgkadï ärinC (KP 11,3) ‘The king probably gave
this order because he was afraid of what people would say’. In Orkhon
Turkic there are twelve examples, all of them with past reference; one
of these is a nominal sentence. Schönig (lecture at the VATEC
symposium, September 2002) pointed out that the instances of this
particle in the Orkhon inscriptions express respect towards the higher
powers, whose activities and motives one does not presume to know
about too closely. In later sources K HL(MC appears to have been
compatible with all tenses, as we find e.g. NK MOQPSRLTIUL+MV K E K HL+MAC (KP
10,1) ‘I imagine he’ll understand (the hint) by himself’. Uygur
documentation for K HL(MAC is rather limited (see the UW for examples).
The Uygur particle ärki mostly appears in interrogative sentences,
where it signifies ‘I wonder’; it usually indicates that the questioner has
no hope of receiving a clear-cut and authoritative answer, either out of
genuine doubt or out of politeness and timidity. In declarative sentences
ärki expresses doubt, to be translated as, e.g. ‘maybe; I guess,
apparently’. Sentences like enC K<WJK MXR<DE K H N L W LZY[I K H in a letter (UigBrief
C5) presumably express a hope as well as a wish: ‘Hopefully you are
well, in good health and in prosperity’. Exhaustive documentation for
the Uygur uses of ärki can be found in the UW; it occurs also in
Qarakhanid texts. Cf. the etymology proposed for ärki in OTWF 321.553
The DLT has several particles not found in Uygur or Orkhon Turkic.
Thus, lA (fol.538) is said to have been used by the Oguz (and only by
them) to indicate that an action has been verified or completed; today it
is attested in other (e.g. South Siberian) \0]^`_acbedcfgihj]f[h<klnm[oqp r s<t>u vwt[xxy
that the use of this particle involves a degree of denying what the
addressee has said, implying that the latter does not know about the
actual occurrence of the event.
553 The UW entry refers to the etymology suggested by Röhrborn 1998a to derive it
from är-gäy, the future form of the copula. While I would not wish to exclude this as a
possibility, the etymology does have some problems: A sound passage /äy/ > /i/ is not
known to me (though particles could have their own rules) and the /k/ of ärki is
documented in sources in Indic scripts (as against g in ärgäy); but that is not a decisive
counter-argument either, as inflectional suffixes do tend to be less variable than opaque
words (in view of alternation after /r/ in this case). Röhrborn himself mentions ‘koine’
examples of ärgäy with similar meaning (inelegantly trying to explain them away as
“Schreibfehler ”) and ärki is, in turn, attested in such early texts as TT II,2, TT VI and
Mait.
MORPHOLOGY 351
554 In the Middle Turkic Oguz Kagan text we find gIl added several times to the 3rd
person imperative form.
555 Cf. Barutçu Özönder 2001; however, some of the uses of the particles mentioned in
this paper go back to a homophonous Mongolic particle. The proposals of this author to
consider the syllable °¿7ÀÁ in forms like anÂ7ÃnÄZÅÆÃÇ>ÈnÃJÄ ïtÂ7ÃJÄZÅ)ÆÃ , the -ÂÉ in the future suffix
-mAÂÉ etc. to be instances of this particle are, however, quite unacceptable for semantic,
morphological and functional reasons. ÂÊÉ (mentioned above) is a different particle.
352 CHAPTER THREE
The verb form bol-gay also became a modal particle or was on the
way of becoming one; see section 5.1.
3.4. Interjections
556 In U III 57,101 a male elephant addresses his wife as katunum subadra a; this
could be an instance of this interjection used after a vowel without /y/ rather than a
doubling of the final vowel of the name.
MORPHOLOGY 353
557 “ a ta ^
^ ïg Oh, wonderful!” in HTs III 945 is a mis take for nä ta
^ ïg ‘How
wonderful!’: N’ and ’’ look identical in most varieties of Uygur writing.
354 CHAPTER THREE
558 What is read as ïta in KP 19,6 and ïtta in KP 57,3 are not instances of this element;
the first must be ïnÄÆÅ and the second a locative form as pointed out by Tezcan in
TDAYB 1975/6.
MORPHOLOGY 355
täÇ3ÈDÉYÊ ‘your majesty’ (lit. ‘my god’) is used for addressing male or
female ‘majesties’, e.g. in nä sav ärki täÇOÈ*ÉYÊ ‘What matter is (this), my
lord? (MaitH XX 1r17). In DLT fol.199 we find this to have become
tärim Ë.ÌÍÍÎQÏ,ÐпÑKÒOÎÔÓÎÆÕYÖN×Ï,ÐØÌDÖÍ8ÓÎ ÕYÖ×Ï,ÐÐ Ï,ÐØÑ2ÎQÒOÙÛÚ$ÜNÏݪÜNÞ ßà*áâyãKä*åFæ.ç¦è¨é2ê The
appearance of the 1st person singular possessive suffix is similar to
French monsieur, Arabic ë^ìíAí»î~ï ð and English as in the translation
above; the semantic development is ‘lord’ ñ ò.óôõcö½÷Yøúù=øóû$÷$üQýþôOÿ
German (presumably following
‘heavens’ ñ ò.óôõcö:ñ ò$û ôÿQõcöy÷Yø û
õ ÿ ÷
muna559 (e.g. U III 6,1 and 42,16, TT II,2 80, BT XIII 13,112 and 138
or TT X 125 as completed by Zieme in his ‘Nachlese’ to the text) and
ona or una are presentative interjections (like Turkish
, Russian
, French voila), roughly to be translated as ‘look at this’ and ‘look
at that’ respectively. The first vowel of ona / una is not known as it is
!"#!$&%'(*),+-./01)324%'5!768),%'9%';:<1=>$?8A@;6BC-;%D>"FE?)HG%DG;$
in any modern language. What morphological relationship there is
between that and the pronoun ol / anï and between muna and the
pronoun bo / munï is not clear. The Old, Common and Proto-Turkic
dative suffix had a velar in the onset but one is reminded of the
Mongolian dative. With these elements the speaker calls attention to an
event which has just taken place, is taking place or about to take place,
one which is imminent or about to be presented or to an entity the
speaker wishes to be noticed: muna munï bilmiš k(ä)rgäk (TT II,2 24)
‘This, you see, should be known’; muna amtï balïk iIJ'K1LNM1JDOFPQL?RSJTCU1OVU1O
‘(The monster) is, right now, about to enter the town (fragment quoted
]^_?the
in `a;bnote
cNd e\ftogFfiTTh;jVk`*A41);
lCmnSopnCratna
oqlCm;frraši fgZuvaslCIXh;WswOgFJAxzUy{nHY?| WZ. The
l!fXstm;atlïg W[\T ï bo ärür (Suv
last sentence
occurs in direct speech; the context makes it clear that R. is in fact
sitting in front of the speaker and the addressee. We further have una bo
ärür in HTs III 465, V 28,12 and 56,7, VI 38,11, una bo tetir in VIII
30,9 (quoted from the edition of the Petersburg fragments), etc. In
azkya ö}1~Q1~ ïyu turzunlar; män una basa yetdim (Suv 615,14) ‘Please
walk on a bit; I will have reached you in a moment!’ the form yetdim in
fact referring to the future lets the addresees expect the imminent
reappearance of the speaker. That una is not a mere interjection but has
evolved a temporal content of imminence becomes clear when
considering the use of una+kya ‘in a moment’ in instances quoted in the
note to TT VB 80 and in OTWF 55. The particle ma or mah which,
559 In the Analytical Index, Bang & Gabain mention mïna as variant of muna but none
of the passages they refer to shows this form; nor could I find such a variant anywhere.
356 CHAPTER THREE
according to DLT fols. 493 and 539 signifies ‘Take it!’ or ‘Here!’,
could be a contraction of muna (over *mna).
In MaitH XIII 4r15 muna is followed by an element
(discussed in
section 3.341) spelled together with it: nä ymä ïnX!01w
V1;zCV1 i81;¡¢ ï bo [...] oronluku£ ¤¥¦§z¤¨8Q
‘Why do you say “My throne is falling down”? Here it is; is this not
your throne?’ 81?¡?¢ ï appears also in MaitH XI 7v13, XIII 7v13 etc..
oš oš is in the DLT said to be an exclamation used for calling cattle to
drink; this is clearly the same as the Common Turkic presentative
interjection of the same shape found in DLT fol.30 as oš mundag kïl
‘Do thus’. akar közüm oš tä£;© ¤ (DLT fol.289) can be translated as
‘Look how my eyes are overflowing like the sea!’; the use in DLT
fol.332 is similar. oš became the first part of modern demonstrative
pronouns such as ošol and ušbu.
Exclamatory sentences can be introduced by interrogative-indefinite
pronouns such as nä ‘what’, z¡¢ ‘how many’ or demonstratives such as
¡?¢¡ ‘so’, sometimes accompanied by ymä / mA; see part V.
CHAPTER FOUR
SYNTAX
which are evidently not even meant to be received as a coherent text but
only as a word for word or even morpheme for morpheme rendering;
these are disregarded here as far as syntax is concerned. Others can be
difficult to understand unless confronted with the source: Chinese art
prose style is borrowed e.g. into Xuanzang’s letters to the emperor
copied into his biography. Many sources can, however, be –
subjectively – judged to be ‘normal’ Old Turkic, if one claims extensive
reading to have given one the ability to pass a founded judgement on
this question; not forgetting, of course, that Old Uygur may have
acquired some lasting ultimately foreign characteristics through contact.
Loan syntax seems to be especially conspicuous in Christian
manuscripts, e.g. oxšayur sän sän yal< =>@?ACB ï ol ingäkkä kim ïraktïn
üntädi öz buzagusïD a kim azïp barmïš ärdi. näEGF HJILK0I.MN#IPOQSRTGU0VGWXT
öginiY ünin, tärkin yügürüp kälti ögiY ärü, sezigsiz boltï (ChrManMsFr
Chr r11-v3) ‘You resemble (VSO word order; first sän harking back to
a language with verbal subject marking in present forms – like Greek),
o son of man, that cow which (relativisation with the particle kim) from
afar called out to her (use of öz similar to languages with analytical
marker of possession) calf which (same analytical relativisation
structure) had gone astray. As (= ‘how’, as in spoken German) the ( ol,
literally ‘that’ ) calf heard (again VSO) its mother’s voice, it
immediately came running (VO word order) to its mother and was no
longer afraid.’
One domain in which sources must especially have influenced our
texts is word order, particularly since denotative content is little
affected thereby. We will here disregard this possibility, for the
following reasons: No research has hitherto been done on this matter,
358 CHAPTER FOUR
because possible source texts often exist in several Asian languages and
sometimes in different versions and because there does not appear to be
much difference between texts we know to have been translated from
different languages.
One important principle of Old Turkic syntax is that there is no
automatic agreement in the sense that categories of one word in some
construction have to be reproduced in some other word. As an example
for this principle, adjective attributes are never for any nominal
category inflected in accordance with their head. Redundant expression
of a category is by no means excluded, however: Some nominal
attributes are inflected in this way and can then be considered to be
appositions. Plural agreement of numerals is common in post-
inscriptional Old Turkic especially for living beings. Within the noun
phrase we have, e.g. Z[\[\] ïlar ‘the three teachers’ (HTs VIII 67). It is
not rare (but by no means rule-regulated) for verbs to stand in the plural
also when they have plural subjects; e.g. alko tïnlïglar mäni^ yatïm
ärmäzlär ‘no living beings are strangers to me’.
Another important feature of Old Turkic syntax is the possibility not
to fill out patterns. Argument slots opened up by verbs can be left
empty, with two possible consequences: Either the context enables the
addressee to gather the reference when the sentence itself does not
supply it in some way; if context means textual context, we then speak
of zero anaphora. If no reference is retrievable, another possibility is
that the proposition is understood to hold for any entity appropriate to
the situation, what is sometimes (wrongly) called ‘impersonal’. All this
holds for all arguments including the subject. bulu^ _ ï`abcbGadead ïp
körgäli bilgäli bolmadï (Suv 630,20-21) ‘The corners (of the world) got
dark and it became impossible to see or recognise anything’ is an
example with unexpressed direct object which is not implicit either:
That we have to add the word ‘anything’ follows from the fact that the
context does not supply us with direct objects for the verbs kör- and bil-
. In other cases entities not referred to should have been known to be
quite specific, e.g. nädä ötrö ulug ä` fgh i jXklnmoqp#o rso2t o.lpgnmu v
iuwjXxyuej
täz { | }~}{9qGe
C {- @/}| } (9 ï äzrua tä (M III
Nr.6 II v16-18 ‘Why does it, in the great Gospel, first praise and glorify
the Moon (i.e. Jesus) and then praise the great king, the king of gods,
the god Zerwan?’: The Manichæan Gospel (not to be confused with any
part of the New Testament) was the first of the seven canonical works
written by Mani, the founder of Manichæism. Readers of the text
presumably knew that he was the subject of the sentence. English and
SYNTAX 359
Nouns and adjectives do not differ all too much as to morphology561 but
one might distinguish between them by use. ‘Nouns’ would presumably
be used more as heads of noun phrases, ‘adjectives’ more as satellites;
but instances such as agï ï ulug+ï ‘the treasurer in chief’ (KP 7,7),
where the rather general predicate ulug ‘great’ is used as head are not
rare at all. Attributive adjectives are not inflected for number,
possession or case and show no agreement with their head. See section
3.1 for further considerations related to this distinction.
Nominal phrases are generally referential-denotative if they contain
lexemes; if they consist solely of pronouns, they are purely referential.
There are also non-referential nominal phrases, e.g. but in but kötürmä
tïnlïg ‘a walking creature’, literally ‘a creature lifted up by legs’ , or kut
in kut 9 ‘prayer for grace’: but, the subject of kötür- ‘to lift’, and
kut, the object of kol-, here appear within phrases denoting concepts.
The phrases can (and usually are) then put to referential use but no such
use is made of but or kut, which are parts of definitions.
All nominals and adverbs can serve as noun phrases, with or without
attributes or other subordinated or appended elements. Since all
sentences can be nominalised around participles, many subordinate
clauses are also nominal phrases. Nominals can be qualified by other
nominals as set forth in detail in section 4.12 and subsections.
The word ‘one’ is used as indefinite article, e.g. in antag antag yertä
bir köl suvï sugulup ... (Suv 603,11) ‘In a certain place the waters of a
lake are withdrawing and ...’; bir braman [ol] kuvragta taštïn turup ...
(HTs III 801) ‘a brahman was standing apart from (that) company and
...’. When the nominal is in addition accompanied by an adjective, there
are two possibilities: Either the article appears before the adjective, as
in bir karï öküzüg ... kumursga yemiš ‘An old cow was ... eaten up by
ants’ (IrqB, a runiform ms.), or it appears after it, as in adïn bir teva
‘another devars¡¢ ’. This alternation may be related to the fact that
560 Cf. “Weshalb lobt man im großen Evangelium, ...” in the translation of the
sentence in UW 95b under alka- 1). The word I have spelled as ä£ ¤L¥¦e§ ¨©eª is not
mentioned in the UW either under a« ¬ or under äG¬ ; the main variant, borrowed from
Sugdian, may have started with oG¬ but there should at least have been a cross-
reference.
561 See section 3.1.
360 CHAPTER FOUR
The case forms themselves are discussed in section 3.124. All case
suffixes have a number of functions and it is often difficult to see a
coherent whole in them; sometimes, as with the dative, these functions
and meanings are practically each others’ opposites. We will here deal
with the functions case by case, not by their semantics.
The cases which can be used adnominally are the nominative, the
genitive and the directive-locative; the equative is so used when it
expresses an approximation.
One problem to be mentioned here is a question around verbal nouns
and the like in oblique case forms; should -gU+kA or -mAk+kA be
considered to be complex converb suffixes or should they be discussed
as dative forms? This depends mainly on whether the suffix sequence
has evolved a life of its own and gained its paradigmatic place in the
verbal system; in this case it is dealt with as a complex converb suffix.
Finding a straightforward answer to this question is not always easy.
562 However, the phrase altun so® ¯±°-²
³L´ µ ‘coming to Altun So¶ ·e¸
¹±·»º½¼0¾
¿¿#À Á0 º½Ã ·ÅÄ
ÆÇ2¾
be read in l.3 of the Yenisey inscription E38, an Altun SoÈeÉ(Ê ïš being mentioned also in
E28 C 3.
SYNTAX 361
The nominative case is also used for nominals denoting things the
subject of the verb will become, as tüö ÷ øúùûü
÷ ýPùþÿ ü(ù
ïr böšük
ädgü ögli bolurlar (TT VI 308-9) ‘They become each others’ brothers -
and sisters-in-law and become friends and well-wishers’. Perhaps
unexpectedly, this construction is also used with the verb ‘to appear’, as
in šakimuni atlïg burxan yerten ÷
Sù9ÿ
X÷ ø)
* +-,/.103 2 (Laut
4 5 687:9; 26) ‘You will
appear in the world as !" "$#&%'#(('" alp bulguluk
burxan yer suvda bälgürmiš ärür siz (MaitH XV 11r23) ‘you have
appeared in the world as a buddha hard to encounter’; there is no need
for any Turkic counterpart of ‘as’.
The nominative is further used in adnominal constructions in which
the genitive is also used, as described in section 4.121; the semantic
content of the relationship is rarely related to actual ‘possession’,
although the term possessive construction is generally used for it: One
example is oglum savï in KP 63,2 which, in its context, signifies ‘news
from my son’ or ‘ about my son’; note that there is here no case suffix
although the satellite is quite definite and specific. Other implicit
semantic relationships of this construction have to do with ‘part –
whole’, ‘place’ or ‘assignment’.
Direct objects often appear without accusative suffix without being
confined to preverbal position (as e.g. in Turkish); e.g.: <=>@?A>=3ABDCE@FHG
ïnE'AI?-J KJML ïnE'ANABAOPQA ?R?S>FHS? (M III nr.6, 12,32) ‘It is necessary to
have one’s meals thus, at the right times’. In the inscriptions we find
yälmä kargu ädgüti urgïl (Tuñ 34) ‘Place (the) vanguard and watch-
towers well!’ or xagan at bunta biz bertimiz (KT E20) ‘It was we who
gave (him) the title ”kagan” on this occasion’. BQ E 17, which is
parallel to KT E20, here writes accusative xagan atïg; the scribe of the
BQ may have felt there was here something he wanted to change, but
the KT text cannot, nevertheless, be considered to be incorrect. The
absence of the accusative suffix is not related to non-specificity, e.g.
kara kum ašmïš ‘They had crossed the Kara-Kum (desert, mentioned
also in Tuñ 7)’ (ŠU N8) or (in Uygur) bo nom bititmištä ögirdäEMC? ïzïm
‘my daughter who rejoiced when this book was written (by
commission)’; similarly bo ïdok nom ärdini bititdäECT=U:ALVCW?MGENJ'FH= K
‘the lay brother K.O, who has this holy L X Y[Z@\ -jewel written down’ or bo
tört sav agïzda tut- (Wettkampf 27 and 30) ‘to repeat these four
words’. 563 With possessive suffix, agïr ayïg kïlïn]^\Z ïm ikiläyü takï
kïlmaz män (SuvSündenbek 75) ‘I will not repeat my gravely evil
563 In an instance like bo yarlïg ešidip (KP 18,8) ‘having heard this order’, on the
other hand, yarlïg could also have been simplified from accusative yarlïg+ïg; cf. yïglïg
< *yïg-ïglïg in Abhi B 1404.
SYNTAX 363
deeds’,
e
kö_ ` a`e bc`'d amïrtgurup (TT II,1 72-73) ‘calming our hearts’,
`f`bg`dihjlkmj jln$opjqhjlka[rts ïnalïm (Wettkampf 41) ‘Let us test each
564 Clark (edition of Pothi) writes yolï[n], although Bang & Gabain indicate no lacuna,
stating that the “context requires D[irect] O[bject]”; EDPT 434a tacitly -¡¢£ ¤ .
364 CHAPTER FOUR
the king M. said as follows: ”My dear son, why have you come in
sadness?”’ (KP 4,5). The adjective arïg in ¹ ©'¨¿©ÊÇ:©¯ ïg bökünki
künkätägi arïg küzädtim (DKPAMPb 1282) ‘I have observed the
precept perfectly until this day’ also belongs to this category.
In bir tümän agï altun kümüš kärgäksiz kälürti (KT N 12) ‘He (i.e. the
Chinese emissary) brought exactly 10 000 (units of) brocade, gold and
silver’ kärgäksiz, a predicative adjective in the nominative case,
(literally ‘without any missing’) is translated as ‘exactly’; its use is
adverbial.
türk xagan ötükän yïš olorsar (KT S3) ‘If the Turk ruler stays in the
Ötükän mountain forest, ...’ has nominative yïš in local function;
elsewhere olor- governs the locative. The space one moves through can
SYNTAX 365
565 The UW (284b-285a) makes the absolute temporal use of ay ‘month’ into a special
lexicon entry (ay II). This is not, however, a different lexeme from ay ‘moon, month’.
Nor can an oblique use of the nominative be considered a case of ellipsis of a case
ending (instrumental, dative or locative) or a postposition, as the author writes. Such
uses are clearly a syntactic matter – the temporal use of the nominative of terms
denoting stretches of time – and not a lexical one.
366 CHAPTER FOUR
‘he gives (it) to others’ (M III nr.8V v5); it expresses direction also with
speech, e.g. in täÀ ri kuvragïÀ a nom nomlayu ‘preaching to the assembly
of gods’. T he difference between this use and that of the directive is
that the dative is used when the goal is reached (or is meant to be
reached), whereas the directive mostly expresses mere movement in the
direction of something.
There are temporal datives in the passage koñ yïlka yorïdïm ... tokuz
otuzka süÀ üšdüm ‘I set out in the year of the sheep ... and fought on the
29th’ (inscription of the Uygur steppe empire); the same tokuz otuzka
‘on the 29th’ is attested also in M III nr.2 r8. yazïÀÁ (BQ E31) signifies
‘in that spring’, the possessive suffix referr ing to the winter mentioned
in the previous sentence (or to the same year as that winter). Sometimes
inscriptional temporal datives refer to stretches of time as frameworks
for events, as in the sentence bir yïlka tört yolï süÀ>Â/ÃÄ:ÂÅ (BQ E30) ‘I
fought four times within one year’. The suffix sequence -mAk+IÀ Æ
discussed in section 4.633 forms temporal expressions; in Orkhon
Turkic, nominal predicates can also be put into the dative to specify the
time a certain event takes place. The common expressions küniÇ ä, ayïÇ a
and yïlïÇ a mean ‘day by day’, ‘month by month’ and ‘year by year’
(e.g. in KP 7,4-5 and 13,6). Concrete dates such as È>ÉÈ.Ê)É!ËÌ1ÍÎ.Í2Ï>ЦÑÒÎË
‘on the 22nd of the 3rd month’ or takïgu yïl ikinti ay on yaÇ ïka566 ‘on the
10th of the 2nd month in the year of the hen’ are always in the dative.
Early Manichæan texts also have temporal datives: ol ok künkä ‘on that
very day’ (DreiPrinz 108), ol aylarka ‘during those months’ (Windg
19). In Tuñ 27 we find kïrkïzïg uka basdïmïz ‘We fell upon the K. while
they were asleep’; interestingly enough, the same event is in KT E35
referred to with the sentence Kïrkïz bodunug uda basdïmïz. See section
4.1106 for the locative in temporal function.
There appears be a static local dative in the following sentence: “iki
agulug yol bašïÇËÓÐ'Ë>Ô@ÑÕÎË×Ö ïgïÇËØËÒÙ
Ñ.ÚZÑÙ
Û ï yolka kim?” tesär (Xw
116-7) ‘If one asks “Who is at the beginning of the two poisonous
ways, who is on the way which misleads to the gate of hell?”’. Also e.g.
ol kam köÇÈ)ÛÍÇÜ ïnÉËÝ ËÎ ïntï ‘That magician thought as follows in his
heart’ (M I 34,18); thus, with köÇ>È>ÛÍÇ.ÜßÞÞÞKÝ ËÎ ïntï also in M I 6,17. I
know of no such instances in non-Manichæan Uygur.
In näÇàÌáÚâ)ÜÎÍ/ã>ËÙ2Ë>Ê:Û ïg bodunka bintägi bar ärsär nä buÇ ï bar ärtäÉ/Í
ärmiš (Tuñ 56) ‘If any independent nation anywhere were to have one
like me, what trouble could it ever have?’ bodun, which appears in the
dative, refers to a possessor; similarly muÇ ar nä ärsär yazok yok
566 This term, literally ‘the new (moon)’, is used when referring to a day in the first
third of a month.
368 CHAPTER FOUR
(PañcÖlm 23) ‘He does not have any sins whatsoever’. Semitic
languages or Latin also have datives of possession; Turkish uses the
genitive instead. The dative is basically possessive also in äå,æ çè)éç.êë
mäì:íêëïî)ð>ñ'ò3óê ï bolzun (BT V 149-150) ‘May he attain joy and
happiness!’. Below we mention a few instances where the dative with
bol- ‘to become’ has a different meaning.
The dative can also be abstract, when it marks the aim of an abstract
action: burxan kutïìó!êä.ì>ç>ñ,ä.æí'ô+ç (BT I 1184) ‘setting one’s heart on his
majesty the Buddha’. The DLT proverb sögüt söliì.ë/õ,êóö ïì@êó÷ ïìó ‘The
willow for its sap, the birch or its bark’ has the same sort of content
without a verb. It is in this sense that the compound suffix -gU+kA
forms final clauses (section 4.636).
Reference to the action one is directed towards can be generalised by
being expressed by bol- ‘to become’: yïlkïka barïmka bolup (Xw 152,
177-178) ‘being busy with tending livestock’; alkïnéøùç.ö>êëßî>ð>ñ¦ô+øò@øú
(M III nr.12 v3) ‘We have had the moment of death on our minds’.
Thus also DLT fol. 355 közi yolka bolur ‘his mind gets directed
towards leaving’.
An instance like äzrua täì.æíêë1û
óú ïntïmïz (Xw 22-23) ‘We sinned
against the god Zerwan’ is again different, 567 as Zerwan is not the
beneficiary of the action but the one displeased by it.
In a sentence quoted in Wilkens 2000 nr.65
the dative marks the topic
of speech: ü)ý£þü þÿ>þÿ ü
ü ïnïn ayïtdï
‘Concerning meat and blood he said “Don’t eat or drink it” and
mentioned its punishment’.
In the following examples entities meant to benefit from the action are
marked by the dative: kün tä "!$#
&%(')+*,-./'02143 5/*"!6 ïn
kamagka yarotïr (M III nr.7, 14,101) ‘The sun rises above this world
and lets its light shine for the benefit of all’; ät’özin ämgätip el iši (M
III nr.23 r8-9) ‘straining his body for the sake of the state’. In yegädmäk
utmak bolzun ma 1 (M I 28,18-19) ‘May I ... attain victory’ the
beneficiary is also in the dative.
The objects of emotions can be marked by the dative, e.g. ma 1
amranmakï ïz ‘your love for me’ in U III 29,1 or sa 171"891:8;1 ïn ...
ölür män (U III 82,28) ‘I die from love for you’. The dative in m(ä)šixa
burxan ... bušï berigli ... kišilärig käntünü "<=0
*?>@0AB%- ?"<=0
*?>@0AC/
atadï (M III Nr.6 I r5) presumably also expresses positive emotion:
567 If interpreted correctly; the ms. has been read as tä D EGF HJI(K .
SYNTAX 369
568 This follows the interpretation of UW 257a top; the editor proposed a causal
interpretation (see below), which left käntünüt unexplained.
370 CHAPTER FOUR
569 The difference between concrete dative and directive needs more elucidation. In
Tuvan, e.g., the directive is used if an object moves away from the observer, the dative
if it moves towards the observer; some such principle might be at play in Old Turkic as
well.
SYNTAX 371
570 Another DKPAM instance of bar- + locative appears in SIAL 18(2003): 155 (l.7);
the editor in a note expresses his opinion that this is rare and quotes three further
instances from Suv.
SYNTAX 373
*,+-*./10 0
‘in’, ö23234)5 ‘before you’, üskümtä ‘in my presence’, kenindä
‘after’ but also for the ones with abstract mean ing such as yolïnta
+#*./10
‘concerning’, ugrïnta ‘for the sake of’, tïltagïnta ‘because of’, 673
‘due to’ or tüšintä ‘as a result of’. I take it that the non -local ones, such
+
as tïltag ‘reason’, 673 ‘force’ or tüš ‘fruit’, do this in analogy to the
ones having local or temporal semantics in the first place, such as yol
‘way’ or ugur ‘point in time, occasion’.
571 The Uygur use of asra and asrakï is documented in the UW; see the EDPT for
their cognate as+tïn, which was in use from Qarakhanid on (both in DLT and QB).
374 CHAPTER FOUR
heads and gouge out our eyeballs’. bašra täpip (U III 14,3) appears in
fragmentary context but the DLT has four instances of bašra ‘on the
head’ all connected with the meaning of ‘striking’ or ‘hitting’.
The ‘body part – body’ relationship prompted the term ‘partitive -
locative’; if the reference to living beings is by noun phrase or pronoun,
the nominals referring to that whole are placed in the accusative: lm
adrï sünloqpr1st^o ï ogsuz täginm)uv wyxw{z7p#op#zts|u&somst&r1st (Mait Taf
75r16) ‘they pierce them with tridents at any moment at the seat of their
soul (öz konok)’, In }vtZvz#vo~vzz-xw)tz-r,zsztsgu&som ïšur biz, tïlïmïznï
bïm ïšur biz (Mait Taf 174v29) ‘We stab each other in the eye and the ear
and cut each other’s tongue’ and in agulug oqïn yüräkrä urup amrak
isig özin üzgil (U III 55,4) ‘end its (i.e. the elphant’s) dear life, hitting
(it) at (its) heart with a poisoned arrow’, we find that the body parts köz,
kulkak and yüräk are put into the partitive-locative case while tïl and
isig öz are in the accusative with possessive suffix. For the first group
there is explicit or implicit reference to the owners of the body parts,
the speaker in the first sentence, the elephant in the second; this
reference is taken up by possessive suffixes in the second part of the
sentences, but that is linked with a switch to the accusative. In orgaklar
kälip bizni tüprä orarlar ‘Sickles come and mow us off our roots’ (Mait
201v9) the speakers and victims are plants and not living beings; it is
not clear whether plants are in principle included in the domain of +rA
or whether the use of this suffix here indicates that the plants are being
metaphorically assimilated to (suffering) living beings. Note that this
partitive-locative use is compatible with the victim (e.g. bizni) or a part
of his body + possessive suffix (e.g. tïlïmïznï) being put into the
accusative, but that the +rA noun itself is incapable of such reference by
possessive suffix. In tän-t@v
}#tsoHst"r ïgïn töpörä tuta täginip käntü
käntü ärgüsint"l>s ïltïlar (TT VI 464) ‘They respectfully brought the
divine Buddha’s decree to their heads and dispersed each to his own
abode’ the action is a gentle one, unlike the other instances quoted . This
is also an example for all the ways in which +rA and +gArU (which
some had thought to be related or even identical) differ: the former
referring to a body part without possessive suffix, the latter referring to
a place and coming with a possessive suffix which refers to the subject
of the two verb phrases.
entrance,572 proper conduct goes out by the smoke hole’. Orkhon Turkic
and Uygur use +ÊÄË as prolative case.
The ablative formed with +dIn ~ +dAn is not easy to distinguish from
the orientational formative +dXn (which, in fact, often appears as +dIn
in Buddhist texts): The latter never has ablatival meaning, is added to
bases whose actual interpretation is deictic and can be used
adnominally; the former never qualifies nouns.573
572 il is the base of ilgärü ‘forward, eastward’ and ilki ‘first’ because the entrance of
the early Turks’ tents were made to face the rising sun.
573 Examples for orientational +dXn are ikidin äyägüsintä ‘from his ribs on both sides’
(DKPAMPb 207) and orton (< *ortodun) yol ‘the middle way’. ol yäkniæ çÄèéiç&êëéíì&î ïñð
altïn yalò ó&ô°õiö÷ôÄø ù[ú&ûüýú&ûbô¥þÿÄø ëõ ïdta ÿ ï yok (TT X 104-106) signifies ‘There is nobody,
neither among the gods above nor the humans below, who restrains the power of that
demon’. (BT I D 186). +dXn forms can also be used as postpositions governing the
locative
or the nominative; cf. section 4.21. In kiši alasï i ïlkï alasï taštïn (DLT fol.
58) +tin and taš+tïn are used predicatively; this proverb can perhaps be best translated
as ‘An animal’s leprosy is visible; a person’s leprosy (metaphorical for treachery) is
hidden’. +dXn forms can get possessive suffixes referring to the orientational centre:
tagdïn+ïn+ta (e.g. in HTs III 275) signifies ‘to its north’. Forms like this last one show
that +dXn is not a case suffix, as its place is before, not after the possessive suffix.
SYNTAX 377
III 47,19) and
"!#
$
"%& up (KP 34,3) has a
similar meaning: ‘Take as much stuff as you like, till there is none left’
and ‘loading as much jewels and pearls on the ship as there were’. 574
More documentation for -gU+(' and -mIš+(' expressing limitative
quantification is quoted at the end of section 4.124. Many instances of
the very common ) %&+* (,%&* ) and *
+* also refer to quantification,
as *+* ämgänip (KP 47,3) ‘going to so much trouble’.
Just as often, however, +(' expresses abstract accordance, e.g.
)- %&%$./*(01*2!#3&43657 a yaratmïš (KT E 13, BQ E 12) ‘he
organized the nation according to the tradition of my ancestors’; kïyïnïg
kö8 lü8 +9*: (Tuñ I N8) ‘pass judgement as you see fit’, lit. ‘according
to your heart’; yal8 %
<;=*
>5?*
ïn+* ) 3+$@5? ‘if one sums (it) up by human
reckoning (as against divine years which, in Buddhist mythology, are
considerably longer)’ or ! - <%+A+%
B*?"!#3&43657C*;#!D%&;#%+$E<&?7*
ï8
ärdnilig toranïnta olorup ‘sitting among the jewel nets of the golden
tent in the manner of the ninth stratum’.
There is an ‘equative’ of judgement with sakïn-: tiši kišilär(i)8 <3
&
mä8 A<F 8 - +*F
;G $@57 A++H5?*
ïnur (M III nr.8VII r8-9) ‘He thinks of
female persons’ appearance and face as ( +(' ) nought and worthless’ or
bäksiz mä8 I&J4I+KMLNO PK+I+Q9R
L
STLHU,L
VI
T+L,J?W
S ïnïp ... (Mait colophon edited
by Laut in Ölmez & Raschmann 2002: 133) ‘(I) considered the fickle
and transient body to be stable and durable’.
Similarity is also expressed by this suffix: XYS&XZN[X\S6I&Z]P&^?N=TL9S ïzïp kälti
(Tuñ II W4-5) ‘the next day he arrived red-hot as fire’; kanïV J_
`+T+W
yügürti, süV üküV N#WQaT+W,bWNdc ï (KT E24) ‘your blood flowed like water,
your bones lay there like a mountain’. In this last function +Tfe was in
competition with the similative (and with the postposition täg): We
have W^=g1WT+W J?WT ïlmïš ‘scattered like barley’ in l.3 of the (early) hymn
edited in UAJb 16: 221-2 but [ka]vïklayu saT ïlu ‘getting scattered like
chaff’ in (late) Neujahr 29.
In J4IT6X QhJ?W` ïn yïmšak agïn arïp ïrak bodunug anT+WibWQ_N ïr ärmiš (KT
S5 = BQ N4) ‘They used to cheat them with sweet words and soft
textiles and thereby used to attract the distant tribes to their vicinity’ the
form WZT+W refers to means (detailed in the first part of the sentence)
used for the purpose expressed by the main verb.
+Tfe is often added to names for peoples to form adjectives, as
LZLNdSLST+L ‘Indian’. The reference to languages by equative forms also
comes from this special use of similative +T(e . The target language of
translations can appear with +T(e , e.g. jk=lnmo7pMqrq
spMl
tludjl
jwv4u[p xay[pYtu[pt
574 In his note to his edition of the KP passage, Hamilton argues for translating
tükägü zn{ as ‘as much as is necessary’; this is possible.
378 CHAPTER FOUR
toxrï tïlïn|+}~a}
?} mïš, [pra]tnarakšit a|+}
7#7
ï tïlïntïn [türk] tïlïn|+}
ävirmiš maytrisi[mit] nom bitig (MaitH XX Endblatt v7-9) ‘the
doctrinary text Maitreyasamiti, which master K. adapted from Indian to
Tokharian and master P. translated from Tokharian into Turkic’ or
t}
:a}| tïlïn|} agtar- (HTs VIII 48) ‘to translate to Chinese’.
+ |( can, finally, be added to adjuncts such as ašnu ‘previous(ly)’ and
in such cases makes their adjunct function more explicit.
The name ‘equative’ has been retained for this case form only ou t of
convenience, to accord with general Turcological usage; equative
meaning is not in any way central to the use of Old Turkic +|( .
classes of demons’ and ot täÞ&ßàá4â&ãåäæ
ç<è#é+ê\é&ã á4é&Þé6ë4é(ì (Xw 74) ‘the god
of fire fought with the demon a long time ago’ 575 the comitative is also
reciprocal in content. In BQ E33 we have iniligü ‘together with a
younger brother’, in BQ E41 íç
àÙé
î9ç&àïë7à=è[à êé³ð=æ<ñ<à ìóò
ô
ß:õ ï ‘he fled with
two or three persons’.
371.576 Proper names formed with the element xan ‘ruler’ are discussed
in OTWF 76-7.
There is a variety of complex nominal phrases; we here group them
according to whether their satellite is possessive, descriptive, deictic or
quantifying. Descriptive satellites specify the meaning of the head. The
difference between deictic and possessive ones should become
sufficiently clear when considering pronominal satellites: ol is deictic,
its genitive anï> possessive. Descriptive, deictic and quantifying
satellites are not, as such, NPs, and do not establish any reference
relationship distinct from that of their head; possessive satellites, on the
other hand, do establish a reference relationship of their own, unless
they are sortal (generic in a sense, in which case they in fact describe
the kernel). Any morphology relating to the syntactic use to which the
nominal phrase as a whole is put is borne by the head and not the
satellite; such morphology will be disregarded in this section.
576 This ms. may have been particularly prone to such spellings or its editor may have
been especially sensitive to them.
382 CHAPTER FOUR
For an example like tonnuYZ []\^[ ‘clothes’ louse’ (M I 8,14) the context
makes it clear that clothes and louse are generic: In Old Turkic it does
not seem to be the case that genitive satellites are specific while non-
adjectival satellites in the nominative are generic (as we know it e.g.
from modern Turkish).
Text organisation can get other parts of a sentence intervene between
a genitive and its head; thus in the following example (TT X 104-106),
where yäk+niY ‘the demon’s’ is a satellite of _8`a +in ‘his power (acc.)’:
In ol yäkniY `.b \ `<c \
dY.ef[Kgih\ ïn yalYj _ \
g _ [$klde b de _8`a [ c \ ïdtaa ï yok
‘There is nobody, neither among the gods above nor among the humans
below, who restrains the power of that demon’ the demon i s the topic.
There is no justification for the view expressed by Gabain in her note to
the passage that this is an instance of “untürkische Wortfolge”.
In instances as the following the head has the 3rd person possessive
suffix but the satellite is unmarked: kelän käyik muyuzï (TT I 42) ‘the
horn of a unicorn’, täY ri yeri ‘divine land’, xan süsi ‘the royal army’,
kögmän irintä ‘north of the Sayan (range)’, burxanlar tamgasï ‘the seal
(i.e. the last) of the Buddhas’, beš täY ri yarokï ‘the light of the fivefold
god’, nom kutï ‘the holy doctrine’, sansar ämgäki (U II 81,68) ‘the
sufferings of sammn oprq ’, Orkhon Turkic köl tegin atïsï (yollug tegin)
‘(Y.T.,) the nephew of K. tegin’. Plural satellites need not be in the
genitive either: täs rilär sözinlügün (Xw 2) ‘with the word of the gods’;
täs rilär ordolarï titräyür ‘the palaces of the gods are trembling’.
Another instance where both head and satellite are in the plural (the
head being marked by possessive suffix) is bo yagïlar kïzlarïn ... bït ïp
käsip (MaitH Y 211) ‘cutting up (the bodies of) these daughters of
enemies’ . Even satellites shown to be definite by having possessive
suffixes do not have to be in the genitive, e.g. oglum savï (KP 63,2)
‘news from my son’ or ïzïm bälgüsi (HTs III 318) ‘the mark of my
footprint’. These contents are not, of course, very well desc ribed with
the label ‘possessive’, since no possession is involved.
In some cases, what looks like this construction may be one nominal
phrase only at first sight; the following sentence could instead be an
instance of the ‘construction with two subjects’ (discussed in section
4.4): antag antag yertä bir köl suvï sugulup on mïsvuqiw ïklar künkä
köyüp ... (Suv 603,11) could signify ‘what happened to a lake in some
particular place was that its waters got drained and 10,000 fish got
burned by the sun’. The rela tionship between bir köl and suvï would
then be not one of government within a single nominal phrase but one
of apposition; bir köl might have been mentioned as topic while suvï
would be the actual subject of sugul-.
SYNTAX 383
Relatively rarely the attribute stands in the genitive although the head
has no possessive suffix. This happens in the inscriptions (e.g. mänix är
‘my men’; Yegän Silig bägix kädimlig torug at ‘the harnessed bay horse
of S. bäg, the khan’s nephew’ in KT E33), most often in lamaistic texts
of the 14th century. Further examples are sänixWy z ïm{ ï är käldi ‘Your
creditor came’ (UigBrief D 6, a person al letter) and bizix}|~0-K
r
‘our 500 men’ (KP 53,4 -6). In instances in Classical Uygur, the satellite
is often a highly honored person or entity; e.g.: eligimiz kutïnïx ïdok
y(a)rl(ï)g üzä (HTs VIII 58) ‘by the holy order of his majesty our king’
or t(ä)x<
K|<
(yiyx| $
y(8iy8{-y
xz^ (U III 29,16-17) ‘as
(little as) one verse from the divine Buddha’s teaching’. In Manichæan
texts: t(ä)x<r
f$0
(8- 8Xx Pi -¡-¢£f¤¦¥8§¨ª©«¬¥8i
®¯«@° (M III nr.13
v7) ‘My lord, I have viewed and observed your star …’; sizi± ©<²¨ª©i
³K´¶µ
frištilär ‘your chosen messengers’; siz tïdïmlïg xanlarnï± ·§-¡¸ ïltïzda siz
(Wettkampf 49) ‘You are from the root of crowned kings’. Two hymn
titles, ¹-®³º¹® » ïnu¼¦½¾¿ ‘the hymn of the god Vam’ and ½HÀ
¾Á<»2ÂBà š(a)n
Ä-ÅÆ2Ç
Å(È8ÉËÊ8ÌXÉÌ ÍÎ]Ï Ð<ÑÓÒÅÔBÎ
Å ‘the hymn to god, light, power and wisdom’ (M
II 9 and 10 respectively) show the same structure.
Sometimes heads appear without possessive suffix and attributes in
the nominative although the relationship is neither appositional nor
adjectival, as in balïk kapagda olor- (KP 64,7) ‘to sit at the city gate’ or
ÒiÕBÔÓÅÊ-Ð<ÏÖÎ ïnlïglar ‘the beings of the five existences’. kün orto ‘noon’
would seem to be of the same type, as its literal meaning is ‘the middle
of the day’.
There is an adnominal partitive locative with referential satellite, as in
ol yäklärdä ulugï (ManUigFr r5) ‘the leader of those demons’.
As a rule, the genitive precedes its head; this was the case in all the
examples quoted. An occasional exception occurs e.g. in Windg, which
has
à ÌXÏ&äkinti / ×Ø× Ï Ø / ÎÙ<ÉªÎ × Ï Ø / ÒÕÔfÌXÏ ØEÚ ÉÜÛ ÚÝ Ç^Ì È¬Þ Úß ÌXÏ Ø Ç^Ì È 577 yel täÑ<ÉÌ
×Ø $
Ì Ñ ‘the second / third / fourth / fifth virtue and joy of the power of
the wind god’ as titles of text sections. The text is a translation from
Parthian and the translator clearly copied the word order of his source,
in which all the corresponding phrases follow their head as well.
Making the genitives precede would have pushed the ordinals out of the
prominent first position.
577 There are some lacunas in the text but it is also clear that there is an intended
stylistic variation, the possessive suffix being either present on both terms, present only
on the second (making that an instance of group inflection) or absent on both.
384 CHAPTER FOUR
sezinti (Suv 630,10) ‘He saw this, the bodhisattva, i.e. that this was the
situation, and became exceedingly frightened ... and worried.’
The most elaborate descriptive satellites are the adnominal relative
clauses; these are described in section 4.61 and its subsections.
A further way to link nominals is for the satellite to get the suffix
+lXg with no suffix on the head. Such instances can be classified into
two main groups: Either the two nominals have two distinct referents or
they refer to the same entity. In a first type, the content of the satellite
can be said to be ‘at’ the content of the head, or the latter to ‘have’ the
former; e.g. didimlïg bašlar ‘crowned heads’ (Mait) or, with inalienab le
possession, azïglïg toC5DE FGIHJ9KML*N(OQPSR#G.TUSVXW<Y[Z(\,]_^5`a<b#TM`cad`bSeNf +lXg has
no content of its own but merely serves subordinative concatenation.
The satellite often has a further qualification, as altun ög#hi(jlknm ïgun (U
IV C58) ‘a golden-coloured deer’, mo
pq#r*s ïg tözlüg nom (BT I D 197) ‘a
pleasant-natured doctrine’ or, with a nouny qualifier, urï oglanlïg ävs@t
(Heilk II 2,65) ‘a woman with male offspring’. The satellite can also be
a verbal abstract whose subject is the head, as in yavlak sakïnsh ïg rakšas
(U IV A66) ‘an evil-thinking uv p(m wyx
zx ’; the {|5} z wyx
zx (a female demon) is
here doing the thinking (sakïn-).
Some +lXg forms specify the material of which the referent of the
head is made; altunlug kürekar ‘golden temple’, altunlug lenxwa
(BuddhStab II 23) or tämirlig tag (U II 25,26) ‘iron mountain’ consist
wholly of gold and iron respectively; such satellites appeared also
without +lXg (cf. tämir talkuklar quoted above). In t(ä)~
{.} ïzlarïlïg
terin kuvrag (U II 30,29), the ‘gathering’ ( terin kuvrag) is made up of
‘divine maidens’ ( tä~
{.S} ïzlarï). This is the second general type of +lXg
construction, and it is found only in Uygur.
Sometimes the head is a borrowed element while the satellite is
original Turkic, as in takšutlug šloklar (BT I A240) ‘verse |*& x s’ or
bodisatavnï~} x*
& ïš sü~#
}
x {.1{. (Suv 627,16) ‘the remaining bone
relics of the bodhisattva’: Here the verse and the
, the bones and
the relics are identical and coreferential, though their respective
denotees may be different; the words may, however, also have been felt
as mere translations of each other.
The following are relatively short examples of metaphorical +lXg,
also found only in Uygur: keni5#
##,# ïnlïg kölök üzä nirvanlïg
konoklukta konar (Pfahl I 8) ‘In the end he will settle in the resting
place that is 91(5 y (which he will reach) with the vehicle that is
Buddhadom’; dyan sakïn ïg y(i)ti kïlï ,
#¡#¡¢¤£(¥B¢¦&§51_5#*5
(UigBlock 30-31) ‘if the sword – i.e. meditation – enters the hand – i.e.
the heart – and stays there, …’: In each of these cases, the head is the
386 CHAPTER FOUR
metaphor for the satellite. In sansarlïg tägzin¨ ‘the sam ©*ª «5¬ -whirlpool’
the whirlpool serves as metaphor for the manner in which souls are,
according to Buddhist doctrine, whirled around among the various this-
and otherworldly ways of existence. Buddhist Uygur literature shows
numerous and often quite involved examples of extended metaphors
which make use of +lXg. OTWF § 2.91 has more details on this
formative; the uses listed above are the syntactic ones.
The relationship between kan and ögüz in tïnlïglarïg ölürür, tärisin
soyar, kan ögüz akïtar (KP 2,4) ‘They kill living beings, flay their skin
and spill rivers of blood’ can be called metaphorical quantification.
Then there is the Old Turkic ® #¯*°5±²¬²³¯S´ construction, where the
satellite itself is a nominal clause whose topic includes reference to the
head. Here is an example, where köz, the topic of the satellite clause
közi yarok ‘his eye is bright’ has the possessive suffix to refer to ïdoklar
‘the saints’: közi yarok ïdoklarka bargïl yakïn µX¶¸·I¹»º¼½¾º(¿@½ÁÀÂ.ÃÄ_Â(ÅQÆÇQÈ
close to the bright eyed saints.’ Such complex attributes can also be
used predicatively; e.g. sav+ï süzük and köÉ#Ê#Ë +i katïg in savï süzük
köÉ#Ê#Ë¥ÌÎÍ,Ï*Ð ïg tetmiš siz (HTs VII 2128) ‘You are said to be clear of
discourse and firm of heart’, or köÉ#Ê#Ë + ÌÒÑ(Ó9ÔÊ
Õ*ÖÊ#ËÊ(Ó ‘joyed of heart’ in
ol ödün yagï w(o)rm(ï)zt bo savd[a] ötrü köÉ#Ê#Ë×ÌØÑ(Ó9ÔÊ
Õ*ÖÊ#ËÊ(Ó bolmadï
(Wettkampf 73) ‘Then the valiant Wormïzt no longer enjoyed this
matter’. In the following sent ence (Warnke 434-439) three Ù Ï#Ú*Û5Ü(Ô.ÝÚSÌßÞ
alternate with +lXg and adjective satellites: ÏàÁÏà¦ÛáÐÛ#Ðcâ*Ï*Ö ïlar uzun
yaš+lïg bolgu ärip ïnÖ ïp yana öz+i kïsga bolmïšlarï közünür; yavïz
àäã&Ïæå@ÜË&Ï#Íèç.Ñ#ËÊ_éÁÐ&Ö
ÌëêÐ¥ÌcÐ&Ö@̧Í
Ì1ì²ÌcË&í5ÔîÍ ïsga yaš+lïg bolgu ärip öz+i uzun
bolmïšlarï közünür; arïg süzük köÉ5Ê*Ë +i yïgïglïg [kiši]lär ärtiÉ#Ê Ù Ïà
barïm+lïg bolgu ärip ïnÖ ïp yana Ö ïgay […]g +lig bolmïšlarï közünür
‘Those who care about honour should have long lives but in fact their
lives turn out to be short; evil and murderous persons should have short
lives but it turns out that their lives are long; people who are pure and
serious should be very rich but instead they turn out to be poor’. The
Ù Ï#Ú*Û5Ü(Ô.ÝÚSÌ construction helps underline the contrast between kïsga, the
predicate of the first sentence, and uzun, the predicate of the second.
See Erdal 1998b for further thoughts on this.
Local expressions ending in +dXn or +rA appear in adnominal use,
e.g. ikidin äyägüsintä ‘from his ribs on both sides’ (DKPAMPb 207),
taštïn ilinÖÊ
ÍíïÊ
Õ - (KP 5,4) ‘to go out for a pleasure outing’ (from iki
‘two’ and taš ‘outside’ respectively) or asra mansïz sakïnÖË&Ï#Ô ‘humble
unassuming thoughts’ (TT II,2 68). Other local and temporal
constructions are made adnominal by +kI, as elaborated upon in section
3.126; e.g. yazkï ärümiš yuka buz (HTs VII 731) ‘the thin melted ice of
SYNTAX 387
578 Röhborn writes “zur Trennung von komplexen Attributen ... ungleicher innerer
Struktur,” but the attributes in the last mentioned example are identical in structure. The
388 CHAPTER FOUR
Consider finally the noun phrase bökün bar yaran yok bäksiz mäyzj{|z!}
ät’öz ‘the fickle and transient body which is here today and gone
tomorrow’ (r12 in a Mait colophon reedited by Laut in Ölmez &
Raschmann 2002: 133): The attributes bö+kün bar and yaran yok show
the predicates bar ‘existent’ and yok ‘non-existent’ used attributively
and accompanied by temporal adverbs and thus come close to being
verbless relative clauses (cf. their translation).
UW translates särmälip of the UigStab A10 example (there quoted as “UigStab 117 o.
10) as “reinig end” but särmäl- is ‘to get strained’, hence ‘purified, limpid’.
579 There appears to be a single exception in bolar yal ¢¡£ ‘these persons’ (Fedakâr
239); the language of the mss. in Sogdian script is aberrant in other ways as well.
SYNTAX 389
580 Predicative nominals are generally not put into the plural even when referring to
humans, as ol kïzlar kapagÁ ï biz tep tedi. ... kapag Á ï kïrkïn biz tedilär (KP 41,5-42,6)
‘Those girls said “We are doorkeepers.” ... They said “We are female doorkeeper
servants.”.’
390 CHAPTER FOUR
Adjunct phrases are distinguished from adjuncts in that the latter are a
cluster of parts of speech comprising adverbs, postpositions,
conjunctions and particles, whereas the former are sentence parts
defined by their syntactic function. Adverbs (discussed in section 3.31)
are the part of speech whose task it is to serve as adjunct; adverbs can
therefore serve as adjunct phrases as nouns can serve as nominal
phrases. Postpositions, on the other hand, are, as such, heads of adjunct
phrases; a number of them can be used as adverbs by themselves and
some postpositional phrases can serve as satellites in nominal phrases.
great strong and terrible spell of the god … holds down that demon’.
bas-a582 ‘pressing’, here translated as ‘down’, merely qualifies the verb
and must be considered to be part of the single main clause; the two
verbs describe one and the same action.
The following two sentences (MaitH XX 1r2 and 10 respectively)
show various types of adjuncts which are syntagms and not single
adverbial lexemes, qualify the action and do not represent entities
582 Not to be confused with the similarly formed adverb – postposition – relational
noun, which has a different meaning.
392 CHAPTER FOUR
participating in it: yer suvlar suv üzäki kemi osoglug altï törlüg
täpräyür kamšayurlar ‘The worlds shake and rock in six ways, like a
ship
021
on water’; kuvrag yïgïlmïšta ken turum ara törtdin yï$%&(')'*,+.- */-
* ï ün kügü eštilür ‘After the congregation assembles, suddenly a big
sound and noise is heard from four directions’. There is, first, the noun
phrase altï törlüg ‘of six types’ unmarked for case, wh ich might also
qualify nominal heads but is here used adverbially. Then there are the
four phrases suv üzäki kemi osoglug, kuvrag yïgïlmïšta ken, törtdin
yï$%& and turum ara, of the type which has been called exocentric,
which cannot be used for reference to arguments of propositions. The
first of these phrases describes the manner in which the event referred
to takes place, as does altï törlüg. törtdin yï$%& describes the source
from which the sounds referred to in the second sentence are heard, the
four points of the compass in fact being understandable as ‘all
directions’. yï$%& is, in fact, a noun; it is so used e.g. in ozgu kutrulgu
yol yï$%& ïg ol nomta äšidip … (Pothi 63), where ozgu kutrulgu yol yï$%&
is ‘the way to salvation’. Cf. the definition tört yï$%&3+45
+6')'$87
9&- :
1
yï$%&;6 )'5 (TT V A 62) ‘The four directions and the four corners make
the eight cardinal points’. The use of yï$%& in törttin yï$%& is very
similar to that of the postposition sï$%5 dealt with below, which also has
nominal uses. kuvrag yïgïlmïšta ken and turum ara are temporal
expressions, the first specifying the point in time in which the main
event takes place, the second its (short) duration. turum ara is a set
phrase signifying ‘immediately, on the spot’, documented in UW 172 b
under ara, § B e; it could therefore be listed in the lexicon as a unit, if
Uygur has no instances of turum except in this phrase (but cf. turum
‘height while standing’ in the DLT). The phrase does, nevertheless,
have a transparent structure, ara ‘between, among’ being in Old Turkic
primarily used 0 as a postposition. It is, however, also used as an adverb
in the phrases - - <=%5
%>6?-@).-BA - ‘to be acquainted with each other’, ara tur-
and ara kir-, both ‘to intercede’, 583 and as a relational noun 021
e.g. in U III
13,7-92: k(a)ltï yultuzlar 0
arasïnta ay 1
[tilgäni] nätäg 021
*)'2*DCE%
) ïnl(ï)g
&4:F<?F5G95H7
95G%< ')%IC'JCEK;9(L2).- *M692* )%5N< ï $%5I%7 ïnta *)'*OCE%
) ïnl(ï)g
közünti ‘The king appeared among them brilliant and resplendent as the
moon appears brilliant and resplendent among the stars’. The
postposition ken ‘after’, which we find in the phrase kuvrag yïgïlmïšta
ken, can also be used as an adverb signifying ‘afterwards’; similarly the
postposition birlä ‘with’, which then has the meaning ‘together’. The
internal structure of kuvrag yïgïlmïšta ken is that of a postpositional
583 ‘Interceding for each other’ is ara kiriš-, to be bracketed as (ara kir-)-iš-. All these
phrases are documented in UW 171a under ara (I) § A,c.
SYNTAX 393
584 Old Turkic postpositions do not govern adverbs or adverb equivalents; ‘as before’
is therefore ö räki täg (BT XIII 8,10-12), not ‘ö .
585 And its Oguz counterpart kepi mentioned in the DLT (fol.471 korum kepi ‘like a
boulder’, 243 kušlar kepi ‘like birds’ etc.), < kep ‘mould’ + possessive suffix.
586 Gabain 1974: 142 (§301) quotes “barïmï I
” from Radloff’s edition of the
Yenisey inscriptions; Radloff had transcribed this as
I
¡ (with an A which he
did not transcribe following the word
¡ ). The passage occurs in E11,3, with Vasil’ev
1983:20 emending away the g1 (presumably because he was aware that
¡ does not
govern nouns without possessive suffix in the accusative form): Both Kormušin 1997:
273 and Kurt Wulff in his unpublished edition of this inscription read b1r1mg1 w 2
¢ £¥¤ w¦
1 l 1 2 2 2
y I 1k I t w
¦ k t I; I accept this especially since the two readings are independent of each
other. Understanding the passage is more difficult. Kormušin takes tü to signify ‘kind’
(this meaning being attested several times in Qarakhanid) and thinks that §I¨ª©B§¬« ïlkï are
three kinds of livestock – horses, cows and sheep. He may be nearly right: The phrase
may refer to pack, riding and draught animals such as camels, horses and donkeys
(cows and sheep are not yïlkï). §
¨§
, at any rate, must here be a misreading.
SYNTAX 395
‘towards the divine ruler’ in M III nr.27 r1). Very many examples of
ara ‘between, among, mutual’ are listed and partly quoted in UW 170 -
172, which we therefore need not do here. ikin ara is in fact often used
as ara by itself, e.g. in yig aš ornï bïšag [a]š ornï ikin ara ‘between the
place of raw food and of digested food’ (MaitH XV Nachtr 4r24) or iki
ämigi ikin ara ‘between her two breasts’ (Mait 33r21). tägrä is used as
a postposition, e.g. in känt tägräki bodun bokun (TT X 51-2) ‘the
people around the town’: We find the phrase ätözü®X¯°±¬²I°X³´²Hµ¶°² used
in parallel with ig tapa körsär in TT I 219-220, signifying ‘if you
examine (the oracle) concerning your body’ and ‘concerning an illness’
respectively, i.e. with the same meaning as tapa. yokaru is normally an
adverb, but in TT V A 4-11 we find it to govern nouns in the
nominative: tiz yokaru belkä t(ä)gi suv ulug titir ... bel yokaru köküz
äginkä tägi ot ulug tetir ... °2±/· ¸O¹º³2»²¶¼>µ
»½¾³ ïdïgïnka tägi yel ulug tetir
‘From the knee upwards till the waist (the element) water is said to
dominate... From the waist up till the breast and the shoulder fire is said
to dominate ... From the shoulder upward till the edge of the hair (the
element) wind is considered to dominate’. In t(a)mudan yokaru agdokta
(M I 13,15) ‘when they rose up from hell’ yokaru can be considered an
adverb. art-ok ‘more’ can, already in Orkhon Turkic, govern the
nominative of quantitative terms: yarïkïnta yalmasïnta yüz artok okun
urtï (KT E33) ‘(They) hit him by his armour and his cloak with more
than a hundred arrows’. Similarly in Uygur sïruklar kamag m[ï] ®À¿Á¶Â
¹ÄÃÅX»²
¯º³ÆJ¯»ÇȽ2»®É»²>ÊI³¼NËÌ»
¯@² ïlar ü ÍÏÎÄÐÑzÒÓ
ÔÕÖ2×ÏØtØ ØÙtÍÔ.Ù Ó
Ô.ÙtÚÛÐÚÜmÙBÝ=Ø ØtØÙ ÖÙ
yüz artok burxan[la]r ... (HTs VII 1111-1114) ‘The ... poles were all in
all more than 1500, the sedan chairs and tents more than 300; more than
200 ... Buddha (figures) which had appeared from inside ...’ or bir ay
ÒÓ
ÔÕÖ=ÒÍ ïntï (KP 68,2) ‘They took care of him for more than a month’.
bir tsun artok (HTs III 975) is ‘more than an inch’. Normally artok is
an adverb governing the ablatival locative or (e.g. in BT VIII 143) the
ablative.
eyin ‘as a result of; according to’ can govern two different case forms
with no apparent difference in meaning: We have the nominative in the
Manichæan ms. U 122a v4 (edited in Zieme 1969: 198) and TT II,2 26,
27, 35, 46 and 82 (e.g. öpkä bilig eyin ‘as a result of wrath’) and in
Buddhist üd eyin (Suv 596,22), ayïg törö eyin ävril- (U III 79,4), or
täÞÓÙªß
àÓâáÒÚäã¥Î/ÙtÚÛßÒÓ - (TT VIII A 17) ‘to follow the divine Buddha’;
the phrase köÞÐå eyin ‘to one’s heart’s desire’ is especially common.
However, it governs the dative in nizvanïlarka eyin (Pothi 203, also
Manichæan but later), bo yörügkä eyin bol- (HTsBiogr 188) ‘to accord
with this view’, ayïg öglilärkä eyin bol- (Suv 101,18) and e.g. in TT
396 CHAPTER FOUR
æç}ç}çÈèêé¶ë
ìîíëìîïðJñòé
óìôíäõö?÷øéëìíóEùEç}ö[ððúæç"é
û
ë,üöý"þXÿ¶ùõÿ
ayïg
kïlïn
- where another writes kïlïn
instead.
kudï governs the nominative in sälä ï ‘down the Selenga (river)’
in BQ E37 and ŠU E4, but the locative or (more often) the ablative in
the rest of Old Turkic. kudï comes from kud- ‘to pour’ because liquids
move downwards, including the river mentioned in this example. The
contexts in question thus show the word in its original function, and we
do not know whether it retained its government of the nominative once
its use was extended to cover downward movement in general.
täg is the postposition which has the closest juncture with the nouns it
governs: It is often spelled together with them (see examples below)
and even becomes a case suffix with some pronouns (governing the
oblique stem and not the accusative form and following
synharmonism). täg and are never used as adverbs nor as
relational nouns, and there are some indications that may (like
täg) have had phonically close juncture with what it governs in some
Yenisey inscriptions.
There are four postpositions formed with +lXg which do not yet
appear in inscriptional or in Manichæa n Turkic: tä appears to be
exclusively Buddhist while osoglug, ya ïg and tägimlig are in addition
found in Qarakhanid Turkic. tä , which generally governs the
equative, and tägimlig, which governs the dative, are dealt with below.
osoglug and ya ïg govern the nominative, e.g. taloy ögüz osoglug
‘similar to the sea’; si irgälir osoglug kïlïn- in U I 41, ‘to behave as if
one were to swallow somebody’, nä ya ïg ‘in what way’ both in Uygur
(e.g. TT VIII A2) and Qarakhanid. What is peculiar about osoglug and
ya ïg is that they also govern the pronominal forms formed with the
postposition-turned-case-suffix +tAg, e.g. montag ya ïg ‘in this way’
frequently in the Suv or in BT XIII 13,111, mondag osoglug (TT VIII
A37) or nätäg osoglug (U III 57,61). Being practically synonymous
with täg, osoglug and ya ïg may have come up to strengthen the
meaning of täg and to make it more explicit. Similarly tä appears to
have emerged because of the need to make quantitative + A more
explicit and focussed.
When the postpositions mentioned hitherto govern demonstrative or
personal pronouns or the pronoun käm/kim ‘who’, the governed
pronoun appears in the accusative form, e.g. munï täg ‘like this’ (Pothi
104) bizni täg (common) ‘like us’, bizni ara (M I 10,2), sizni birlä ‘with
you’ (TT II,1 1) or kimni üzä ‘over whom’ (M III 22,11 2, nr.8). sini
(Mait 77v5) and ! "# $ (M III nr.7 I v2, nr.18 v15) ‘for you’,
SYNTAX 397
other hand, the process may also have originated among the postpositions, as some of
those case suffixes may hypothetically have originally been postpositions.
591 This form presumably came about because täg was in the process of becoming a
case suffix since the Orkhon inscriptions; cf. antag, montag, bintägi etc.
592 Kormušin 1997: 115 (l.5) was unable to see this.
593 In both cases the possessive sufix is spelled with two yods, but this is a text in
Manichæan writi ng, where alef and yod are not at all similar.
594 küvrügüni täg (TT VIII G70) does not have an aberrant accusative of the
possessive suffix but should be read as küvrüg üni täg ‘like the sound of a drum’.
SYNTAX 399
towards the king’ it may be governing the dative; elig bägkä is less
likely to have been governed by käl-.
ÉJÊ The local and temporal postpositions üzä ‘over; by’ , öÆÇ,È ‘before’ and
Ç,È ‘in, into’ can govern both the nominative and the locative: e.g. in
muntada öÆ rä ‘before this’ (U IV A 263) and ävi on kün öÆ rä ürküp
barmïš ‘Their households are said to have fled ten days earlier’; kiši
Ê
oglïnda üzä (Orkhon Turkic); ËÌ Ç ÌÍAÌÏÎ!Ð ÈÇ,ÈÑ (BT V 171, with the
comparative suffix) ‘higher than everything (else)’ and on uygur ... üzä
ÉJÊ
... olorup ‘ruling over the O.U. ...’. The phrase ÒSÓÔ Ç,È appears both in
M I 17,14 and 35,17 but signifies ‘in’ in the first and ‘into’ in the
ÉJÊ Ê
second passage: balak ÒSÓÔ
ÉJÊ Ç9ÈFÕ Î!Ð ÈÇ È ‘as (a) fish swim(s) in the
water’ vs. kuyk[a]sïn ... ÒSÓÔ Ç,È kämišmišlär ‘they threw its skin into
É É ÉJÊ
the water’. 595 In Ñ Õ Ì Ç9ÖѯÖÇ Í Ö Ç,È olorugma ‘residing
Ê É in É theÉ two
ÉoÛ
palaces of light’ (Xw 52) it is the former, in sagïr i Ç,È¥ÈA× ÑØÑÙdÕ ÑØÑ Ç,Ú
(IrqB 63) ‘a roe deer entered the ring of beaters’ the latter. Then we
ÉJÊ ÉJÊ
have Ç,È governing the locative, in anta Ç,È (M III nr.4 v16) ‘inside
that’. asra, another +rA form, is not attested with the locative; with the
nominative we have it in what appears to be a lexicalised phrase: We
have adak asra kïl- ‘to subdue’ and adak asra bol- ‘to be subdued’ (see
both in UW 235a, § B of the entry for asra). See section 4.1107 for
other syntactic functions of +rA forms. Some +dXn forms govern either
the locative, e.g. kuvragta taštïn ‘outside the congregation’ (HTs III
802), iki yašda altïn ‘under two years of age’ (U I 10, Magier), käyrädä
öÆ dün ‘east of Käyrä’, or the nominative: säläÆ ä kedin ‘west of the
Selenga (river)’ (inscrip tional), balïk taštïn ‘outside the town’ (KP 1,2),
ÉAÜ É ÜÝ
öÆ Æ Ò ÎÞ7Ì × Þ ïn (Udayana 30 in SIAL 18(2003): 157) ‘under different
trees’.
tašra and taštïn, both ‘outside’ , kesrä and basa, both ‘after’, and körö
‘compared to, with respect to’ are attested with the locative case: kop
Ý ÉGÊ Ý
È Í ÎÍ È Ç,ÈßàÑ Ì Ú Ì Ì Õ ïgda tašra ärzünlär (MaitH Y 33) ‘May they
partake of all good and be free of all evil’; bir braman [ol] kuvragta
taštïn turup ... (HTs III 801) ‘a brahman was standing outside (that)
company and ...’.. kesrä appears not to have been used outside the
runiform inscriptions, e.g. anta kesrä in Tuñ 6, KT, ŠU N 10-12, and
(rarely) the Manichæan sources, e.g. antada kesrä ‘after that’ in Xw
138. basa, which became a postposition only in Uygur, appears in the
very common phrase anta ~ antada basa ‘thereupon’ and in munta basa
595 The locative case is used for motion towards a goal beside denoting lack of
movement when this motion results in the moving object staying in its destination;
similarly, the use of iáâwã with movement may have been licensed when the result was a
static situation
SYNTAX 401
596 Spelled as YWRWK, as a spelling characteristic; not very likely to have been
pronounced as yürüg although the loss of the pronominal n in sarïg+ï+ta (spelled
SRXYT’ ) does make that a possibility.
597 The phrase in antïn ö %'&)(*+ ,.- in (U I 9,7) could perhaps also be read as adïn ö %'& , a
common binome to be read also on l.14 of the same page in reference to the same
circumstances, also with T for /d/ under voice confusion.
402 CHAPTER FOUR
ulatï ‘others in addition to; etc.; including’ governs the locative or the
nominative. The head for postpositional phrases formed with this
element is the name of a set; what it governs are one or more members
of this set. When the governed phrase(s) is / are in the locative, they are
members of the phrase as it is conceived but not as it is named; here an
example to clarify what I mean: bir kiši ölüt ölürmäktä ulatï tokuz
karmaputlarïg … ärtsär (text quoted in the n. to TT IV A 11) ‘If a
person commits murder and the other nine sins’; if the phrase had been
in the nominative we would have found the number ten and not the
number nine, as the first one would have been presented as being
included in the referent of the head: In Buddhism there are ten sins. Cf.
further tilkü böritä ulatï yavïz tïnlïglar butarlayu tartïp … (U III 79,1)
‘fox, wolf and other evil creatures tear it to shreds’. üztä buzta ulatï
üküš tälim nizvanïlar (Pothi 33) ‘hate and the other numerous passions’
and azta ulatï nizvanï (TT IX 22) ‘greed and the other passions’ are
Manichæan examples for this construction. ulatï can also govern the
nominative, e.g. in az ulatï nizvanïlïg ayïglar (U III 88,4) ‘lust and the
other evils of passion’. This is practically identical in content to the last
example mentioned with a locative, but there is a difference: In
runiform atï öz apa totok ulatï kamïg atlïg yüzlüg otuz är ‘thirty (of us),
all men of renown, the (ruler’s) nephew Ö. A. totok and the others’ (4 th
Stein ms., l.6), the overall number of men was 30, the head referring to
the whole group including the set member(s) mentioned. Other such
examples are bars irpiš böri ulatï yavlak tïnlïglar alku täzärlär (TT VI
116) ‘Evil creatures such as tiger, panther and wolf will all flee’, bušï
ulatï altï paramït (Aran)':>l=j C¡S¢£
almsgiving’ or ötrö yay kïš ulatï tört üd adrïlur (TT VI 324 Var.) ‘Then
the four seasons including summer and winter separate’; one could also
write ‘the four seasons, i.e. summer, winter etc.’. Functionally, ulatï is a
marker serving the configuration of noun phrases (cf. section 4.12).598
sï¤:¥$¦ ‘side’ signifies ‘in the direction of’ when it serves as
postposition.599 It appears to govern the directional +dXn form or, less
likely, the ablative. We find it throughout Old Turkic: beridin s拉¦ ‘in
the south’ ŠU E 3 (runiform inscription) and BT V 193, künbatsïkdïn
s拉¦ (BT V 195); küntugsukdan s拉¦ (BT V 195); kün ortod(u)n
s拉¦§ ïrdïn s拉¦§©¨ ïrd(ï)n s拉¦«ª ï yel; kün ortodun sï¤:¥$¦§¬ ïrgarudun
598 See Moerlose 1986 for a good account of the meanings and functions of ulatï.
599 sﮯ° is used in BQ E 2 in a sentence where the EDPT translates it as ‘wing (of an
army)’. It can later refer to ‘one of a pair’, and also signify ‘half’. This and the uses as
postposition can be considered to belong to the same lexeme. In South Siberian Turkic
sﮯ° went through a process of grammaticalization and became a case suffix.
404 CHAPTER FOUR
sï±²³ ‘from the west; to the east; from the south; to the north; the
northern wind; to the south; in the south’ M III 9,4 -0,15 (Manichaean),
koptïn sï±:²$³ ‘in all directions’ Pothi 60 and U III 29,2; kayutïn sï±²³´=´´
antïn sï±²³ U II 29,19-21 (Buddhist), ontun sï±²³ ‘in ten directions’ in
HTs VI 1528 etc. We also find it with µ¶ +tin (TT VII and X) and
taš+dïn (TT IX 90 and TT X), iki+din, tört+tin, tokuz (thus) and on+tïn.
It governs the locative form in kün ortoda sï±²³ (M III 10,8) and the
nominative in on sï±²³«· ï burxanlar (TT VIII). yï±²· ‘point of the
compass, direction’ also serves as postposition governing this same
form; examples for both the nominal and postpositional use are men-
tioned in section 4.2; the EDPT quotes examples for the expressions
ö±$¸J¹:º , tagtïn and kedin yï±²· , signifying ‘eastwards’, ‘northwards’ and
‘westwards’ respectively. In tä±:³'µ»$¼:³)½$²$º$º ﱿ¾±¸¼:ºÁÀ ï±²·[¸¼:³«Â ï ‘he stood
... on the right hand side of the divine Buddha’ (TT X 158 as completed
by Zieme in his ‘Nachlese’) we see that yï±²· does not get a possessive
suffix even if the phrase is qualified by a genitive.
tä±$Ã>µ Ä ‘as much as’ (= Turkish kadar with nominative) governs the
equative of measure; the most common instances are pronominal: ºÅ$¶BÅ
tä±$Ã>µ Ä ‘how much’ (U III 73,2, TT X 345, several times in Su v etc.),
Æ ¼:º¶B²P¸Mű$Ã>µ Ä ‘this much’ (Suv 419,7) and ïn¶B²¸Jű$Ã>µ Ä (Suv 351,16) and
²º¶B²¸Mű$Ã>µÇÄ (Suv 155,22, 176,6) ‘that much’. Further, »µ³!Èɲ$²·C¶B²
tä±$Ã>µ Äʺj¾ Æ ‘as (little as) a single verse from the doctrine’ (U III
29,16).600
Postpositions can have abstract (e.g. ¹¶C¹:º:ËÁ¸MÅCÄËÁ¾Ì'¾BÄ ÃJ¼BÄ ) or concrete
(e.g. kudï, tapa ‘towards’) meanings. Postpositions in abstract use are
found to govern not only noun phrases but also clauses (causal and final
clauses ¹¶C¹:º , comparative clauses täg and osoglug). When governing
just nominals and not clauses, ¹¶C¹:º usually signifies ‘for’; not,
however, in the Xw: azu mu±Í¹¶C¹ºË
²CÎC¼Í»$¼Ï ï bergäli kïzganïp yeti
türlüg bušï nomka tükäti berü umadïmïz ärsär (Xw 168) ‘if we were
unable to fully give seven types of alms to religion whether because of
distress (mu±Ð¹¶C¹:º ) or because we were too stingy to give’; üzä on kat
kök asra säkiz kat yer beš tä±:³'µh¹¶C¹ºÑ¸J¼:³¼:³ (Xw 77) ‘The ten levels of
heavens and the eight levels of earth subsist thanks to / through the
Fivefold God’.
täg is practically synonymous with some of the uses of +¶YÒ : In TT VI
336-9 we find kiši ät’özin buluglï antag ol kaltï tïr ± ak üzäki tuprak täg;
¹¶ÓÀ2²$ÔCÃM²$·ÓÀ^¾$ÃS·C²q¸J¹Ï5¹CÄ Ã>µÕ²º¶B²q¾$÷C²ÃJ¸ ï bo yertäki tuprak¶B²$Ö´=´´×·GØ'³5¸7Ä ¹:º¶
kö± üllüg tïnlïglar an¶C²Ù¾$ÃзC²ÃJ¸ ï tïr± ²·Ú¹BÎKÅ$·:µÐ¸J¼ÛÈɳ²·C¶B² ‘Those who
600 m[a Ü ÝÞÓß7àá â=ã äLålã æ.ã cannot be reconstructed in TT X 499 as täçâèã ä does not govern
the dative.
SYNTAX 405
acquire a human body are e.g. like (täg) soil on one’s nail; those who
fall into the three evil ways are e.g. like (+éYê ) the soil in this earth; ...
creatures with faith are e.g. like (+éYê ) soil on one’s nail ...’.
Some postpositions, like üzä or tägrä, have both concrete and abstract
meaning: tägrä means either ‘around’ or ‘concerning’ (like English
‘about’); üzä can signify ‘over, on’ (as in the sentence just quoted or
some quoted above) but also governs noun phrases referring to
instruments or aspects of activities or states (e.g. ëBìîíCïCì«ð ïñé ïm üzä
ädgü kïlïnéòí ïlayïn ‘I would like to do good deeds by my own merit’ in
KP 12,3 or ün ägzig üzä yegädmiš ‘excellent through his voice’ in BT II
511) and (in Uygur) to the agent in the passive (see OTWF 692-693).
sayu ‘all’ appears only in local expressions but deletes the case suffix
of the noun phrase it governs; this is explained by etymology, the form
presumably coming from the vowel converb of sa- ‘to count’: In kay
sayu bodun sayu ‘to every street and every tribe’ or (HTs VIII 69)
buluóõô ïó ïíLöï ô ÷õô ïø$ø ïlar ‘they spread (the teachings) to the corners of
the globe’ the implicit case suffix is the dative; in kalmïš süó ük yer sayu
(Suv 626,16-17) ‘the bones remain everywhere’ or üküš ärüš bodun
sayu (Wettkampf 58) ‘among very much of the public’, the implied
case is the locative: The verb governing the postpositional phrase
disambiguates these contents.
There are two or perhaps three converb markers consisting of converb
+ postposition: There is -A birlä, which is a well attested analytical
temporal converb suffix (cf. section 4.633; -A does not have specifically
temporal content by itself), and we find a few instances of a sequence -
gAlI üéCùñ , where the meaning of the converb suffix and the
postposition are in mutual support (cf. section 4.636). In the first case,
birlä probably was an adverb also signifying ‘at once’, which did not
govern the vowel converb; in -ðêú7û[ùéCùñü ùéCùñ disambiguates, as -gAlI
can also signify ‘since’. turgïnéBïýï in Höllen 21, 72 and 78 is likely to
be contracted from turgïnéBï ara and to signify ‘as long as they stay (in
that hell)’; cf. turgïnéBï þé:þ=ñÿïýï þSú>þ - ‘to be acquainted with each
other’. Here the postpositi on would again be strengthening the meaning
already found in the converb form. In Abhi 1398-99 there is a similar
construction (but with ekin between the two words).
täg can govern finite verb forms; e.g. munuó ù þ ù$úJú ý'þ=ñ í ø ÷ ý ÷
kololasar män otguratï ordog karšïg kodup tašgaru üngäy täg män
(MaitH XIII 4v7) ‘If I deeply meditate on the dreams she dreamt, it
looks as if I would definitely abandon the palace and go out’, where I
have translated the postposition as ‘it looks as if’. See section 3.27 for
epistemic content and historical connections of this verb phrase.
406 CHAPTER FOUR
Relational nouns are a set of nouns linked to the nominal they govern
through an izafet construction, i.e. what I have dealt with as ‘nominal
phrase with possessive satellite’ in section 4.121. Within such phrases
relational nouns serve as head with possessive suffix; typically, they
are in the locative case. In earlier Uygur, nouns governed within such
constructions are in the nominative and not in the genitive case, as
would have been equally possible if these were normal izafet
constructions; governed pronouns, on the other hand, are in the
genitive case. With nouns with possessive suffixes we appear to have
both possibilities. Governed nominals can also be replaced with zero
reference to the context, i.e. disappear; the stable mark of the
construction is the possessive suffix added to the relational noun. A
number of elements are both postpositions and relational nouns; they
will be dealt with further on. Nouns which also serve as postpositions
but do not appear in the izafet type of structure are here not classified
as relational nouns; this is the case with yï ‘direction’, which
governs nouns in the +dXn form and does not need the possessive
suffix to do so. We first give a list of relational nouns, with a few
examples:
The concrete relational nouns denote relative placing or timing, used
in the locative case form. Such are ‘the inside’ (e.g.
‘in a house’ TT II,1 42), taštïn ‘the outside’ (e.g. "! taštïnïnta
ManBuchFr p.148,52 ‘outside Su-chen’ ), ö# ‘front; face’ (e.g. sizi#
ö# $% &('")+* ‘before you’ M III 24,4 4 nr.9 II), orto ‘middle’ and üsk
‘presence’ (e.g. maytri tä, -".0/ 1-32 4 57698;:.5<= ‘in the presence of the
divine Buddha Maitreya’ TT IV B48 or mäni> ?9@BA9?C0DE ‘in my
presence’ TT X 203); also other s, which we mention below as they are
also used as postpositions. öF ‘face’ and baš ‘head’ ( bašïnta e.g. in
HTs III 389) are examples for the use of names for body parts as
relational nouns. asra ‘below’ appears to be used once, in a late text, as
relational noun, in asrasïnta agnalïm (USp 177,82) ‘let us writhe below
him’; otherwise it is an adverb (used as a postposition in the phrase
adak asra ‘subdued, subjected’). azusïnta ‘beside, on the side of’
(documented in the UW entry for it) also has the shape of a relational
noun; a noun azu is attested as azu+kï and azu+G(H (both listed in the
UW) and with the meaning ‘from the side’ in azu+tïn tur- (MaitH Y
376).601
601 The conjunction azu ‘or’ does not have quite the same meaning but a semantic
bridge would be possible.
SYNTAX 407
ara is used as a noun in the phrase iki kaš arasïnï i ï ‘the place
between the two eyebrows’ in UigTot 668 and 679. That (quite late!)
text (832) also has arasï appearing in the dative in iki kaš kavïšïg
arasï¡ ¢£i¤¥§¦ ¨ ‘reaching the place between the two eyebrows’ and in the
ablative in altmïšar kolti lenxwan頻¢ «B¢¬ ïntïn suvlar kudulup ¯®±°²
20,137) ‘water pours from among 60 myriads of lotuses’: In the vast
majority of Old Turkic instances I have noticed, relational nouns
appear in the locative.
Several postpositions are used as relational nouns as well, e.g. both
üzä+sin+tä and tägrä+sin+dä in Höllen 35: üzäsindä [ya]lïnlayu turur
yogun tuluklar tägräsindä tokïp anï© ³´9³µ ¶·¹¸º+»i¼½¼½;¾º½ ‘They knock
around him with the thick cudgels602 which keep flaming above him
and they submerge him in it (i.e. in the ground with red-hot irons)’. We
have explicit nominal government in tä¿ À"ÁàÄÀÆÅ ÇȹÉÊËÌÀ;ÊÍÎÁÈÉiÊ (TT X
349) ‘around the divine Buddha’. The postposition basa appears as
relational noun e.g. in elig bäg basasïnda yorïyu (U IV A141-2)
‘walking after the king’ or täÏ ÀÎÁ ÄÀÆÅ ÇÈРÇÍ;ÇÍ ïnda (TT X 142-3) ‘after
the divine buddha’ and the postposition utru ‘opposite, facing’ also in
utruÏ Ñ+ÒÔÓÓÓÖÕ×+ØÑÌÙ ‘came to meet you’ (TT I 113). The meaning of the
adverb udu is close to that of basa; we find it used as relational noun in
mini ymä siziÚÜÛÑÛÚ Ý(ÞßàâáãißiäâåàæÆÞ(Ýç (U III 49,28) ‘Let him take me
along following you.’ kenindä is often used adverbially to signify
‘thereafter, in the end’. Numerous examples of arasïnda governing
nouns (mostly in the nominative, rarely, e.g. in Suv 492,5, in the
genitive)
èqé are quoted or mentioned in UW 172-173; one example is
ç+ê9ëìíà+ßã ïg bägniì îïñðÎïñò(ïóóóÌï ôöõ÷ùøúóóó+ûôvòü(ýÿ
þ ï. ögsüzi arasïnta laylag
sözläp ... (Suv 17,22) ‘The wife of a gentleman called Xiancheng was
ill ... and lay unconscious. Between her unconscious phases she spoke
incoherently ...’. The use of ara as relational noun is likely to be
secondary: This use is not found at all in such an extensive early
Buddhist text as the Mait, and not in inscriptional or Manichæan
sources except perhaps in the late Pothi book as aras[ïn]ta (255).
Occasionally there is contamination between postpositions and
relational nouns, as in beš törlüg tïnlïglarnï
(BT V
221-2) ‘within the bodies of the five classes of creatures’, where
ät’özlärin is in the accusative and not in the genitive or the nominative.
602 This is a mere conjecture; I take this to be a derivate from tul- ‘to strike’ from
which another derivate, tulum ‘weapon’, is well attested in Qarakhanid Turkic
(discussed in OTWF 293).
SYNTAX 409
tapla- (TT X 275) ‘to be glad to go’, -gAlI kö9 ül örit- ‘to set one’s
mind on doing’ (very common), tï9:;)<=;: ï unama- (DKPAMPb 1177)
‘not to agree to listen’, >?; @1AB<;: ï kïlïn- (TT X 359) ‘to set about to
stab’, körkitgäli kïlïn- ‘to set about to show’, vïrxar etgäli bašla- ‘to
start to build a monastery’, yarmangalï sakïn- ‘to plan to climb’. üzgäli
katïglan- is ‘to exert oneself to break’, ukgalï kataglan- (MaitH XV
5r30) ‘to strive to understand’ while tïdu katïglan- with vowel converb
signifies ‘to work hard at hindering’: In the first case the breaking or
the understanding has not yet taken place; in the second, the hindering
is going on. tur- ‘to stand (up); to arise’ denotes the expectation of an
event when governing the supine (e.g. ölgäli tur- ‘to be about to die’);
with -(X)p or the vowel converb it expresses continuing or repeated
action (section 3.251). We have -gAlI küsä- ‘to wish to do’ e.g. in HTs
III 925, -gAlI ugra- ‘to intend to do’, e.g. in birök ... nä nägü iš išlägäli
ugrasar ol ugurda ... tep sözläyür ärdi (U III 54,15) ‘Whenever she
intended to commit something, she used to say “...”’; tïnlïglarïg
ölürgäli ugradï (TT X 35) ‘he intended to kill living beings’. Further
examples of this type of phrase are quoted or mentioned in EDPT 91b.
There are no final clauses here (as is often the case with -gAlI forms
discussed in section 4.636), because the two verbs cannot be said to
constitute two separate clauses and because we saw that the meaning is
by no means always final.
In birök yargalï korksar (Heilk II nr.3 l.4) ‘If one is afraid to break it
(a wound?) open, however, …’ and bušï bergäli kïzganïp (Xw 168) ‘to
be (too) stingy to give alms’ the meaning is most clearly not final, as
the second verb of the phrase does not lead to the realization of the
first (and is certainly not temporal); it can most clearly be character-
ised as supine. There is a similar instance in HTs X 499-504: samtso
;A
; C ï pavandïn ünüp pavan kedinki suv ögän[tä] käAB<D:6EF; G; H ï tayïp
>JICBA)ILKNM=OP/;> ï anA
; H8M=;QH ïršaldï ‘Master Xuanzang got out from the cell
(but) was prevented from crossing the rivulet behind it when his foot
slipped and the skin of his shin was scraped a bit’. In these three
instances the main verb states what prevents or prevented the subject
from carrying out the activity denoted by the supine; cf. English ‘be
afraid to go’ and ‘be prevented from going’.
In HR@A uylarka yarangalï sakïnA ïn ‘with the intention of currying
favour with women’ (U III 75,10) the -gAlI form also has supine
function: The expression comes from the phrase -gAlI sakïn- attested
e.g. in MaitH XI 14r28.
The Old Turkic supine can qualify adjectives, as can its Latin
counterpart; e.g.: tupulgalï uA)R
S ‘easy to pierce’ and I)ST<D:UEVR A
R
S ‘easy
to break’ in Tuñ I S6 show that this function existed already in Orkhon
SYNTAX 411
Turkic, while bürtgäli yumšak (TT X 445) ‘soft to the touch’ appears
in a Buddhist text. Cf. körgäli körklüg ‘beautiful to see’ in Wettkampf
36-7; a similar expression appears in another Manichæan text, in TT
IX 14.603 Instances where a -gAlI form gets governed by tägimlig
‘worthy of’ (which otherwise governs the dative of what the head of
the construction is worthy of) are of the same structure: e.g. töz töpötä
tutgalï tägimlig ‘worthy of being carried on the top of one’s head’ (TT
IX 16); further examples appeared in TT IX 26 (damaged), DKPAMPb
1112, AmitIst 58 and MaitH X 4v9.
In the sentence W=XY?Z6[\])^_1` a[a)bcdb)eNf
g ïk bilir baxšïlarka baxšï bolgalï
sini [bi]rlä täh ` i&[jf
g&b alk[%mU[Yna[i&[W=oa (MaitH XI 16r13) the supine is
again not subordinated to a verb but to täh `i&[ ‘equal’; it signifies
‘There is no literate person able as well as you to become a teacher of
all literate teachers on earth’.
The sections 4.31 and 4.32 deal with sentence patterns; another way
to analyse sentences, namely looking at the way the speaker chose to
arrange and organise what he packs into a sentence, is the topic of
section 4.4.
The structure of interrogative sentences is identical to that of
assertive ones. Yes / no questions are characterised by the particle mU,
which is moved around in the sentence to follow the word whose
applicability the speaker queries; the sentence structure thus remains
unchanged by its presence. Its unmarked position is after the verb;
when, however, it appears elsewhere (e.g. ”Xagan mu kïsayïn” tedim ‘I
said ”Should I make him a kaghan?”’ in Tuñ 5), the word it follows i s
focussed on. The Orkhon inscriptions have an element gU which
shows that the speaker expects a negative answer; see part V for its
use. ärki ‘I wonder’ can follow the particle mU in Uygur. Disjunctive
yes/no questions are construed as in Azeri, with yok by itself for
indicating the negative alternative: burxan kutïn bulu yarlïkayok mu ol
azu yok (HTsTug2 3b4) ‘Has he already graciously attained
Buddhahood or hasn’t he?’.
Here is a barely embedded indirect question: anï bilmädi, öhp YB` a[ q
`r[Y8e=^][%m` Ysf
g
[a ïn yörügin tükäl kïltïlar mu ärki tep (HTs VII 870-2)
‘He did not know whether previous translators had rendered text and
603 This should be read as körgäli tugïl[ïg (or togïlïg), with a +lXg adjective attested
also in Suv 619,22; TT IX 20 is similarly damaged, and the entry t uwvyxz|{L} in the EDPT is
a ghost.
412 CHAPTER FOUR
If the topic is in the 1st or 2nd person, the personal pronoun is made to
follow the predicate, presumably becoming a clitic: Nothing else could
explain this position, the natural place for the topic being initial
position. E.g. ol kïzlar “kapag´ ï biz” tep tedi ... “kapag ´ ï kïrkïn biz”
tedilär (KP 41,5-42,6) ‘Those maidens said “We are doorkeepers” ...
“We are doorkeeper servants” they said’. Note that there is no number
concord between subject and predicate; µ)¶L·j¶)¸ ´ ï and µ)¶L·j¶)¸ ´ ï kïrkïn are
606 This fact made Peter Zieme, wo recently reedited the text, think that these were
two sentences, the first of which he translates as “This is what I have found:”. Since,
however, there is no explicit “this is” to serve as predicate of the first sentence either,
and since the second sentence is such a predicate, the two stretches have to be linked.
414 CHAPTER FOUR
If the topic is unmarked for person, the sentences with both nominal
and verbal predicates may end with the pronoun ol ‘that’. One
presumable source is a topicalising structure; a sentence like bilgä
Tuñokok añïg ol should possibly be translated ‘(As for) the counsellor
T., he is wicked’. In some cases, ol is neither topic nor comment but
seems to function like a copula (as e.g. the 3rd person pronouns in
Modern Hebrew); therefore, ol may also have been introduced at some
early stage to complete the paradigm X män / X sän / X ol. Cases such
as kïlmïšlar ol (HTsBiogr 130) or yaratmïšlar ol (l.132, both ‘they
have made ...’) show th at copular ol is not inflected for number even
when the predicate is in the plural. In ayalarïn kavšurup
katïglamaklïglar, üº ät’özkä tägmäkig »
¼)½/»¾º)» tüp kïlmaklïglar ol
(l.154), this ol is shared by two nominalized verbal predicates: The
sentence signifies ‘They fold their hands and exert themselves and
make the attainment of trik¿ ya their ultimate base’. 607 täÀÁÂ1à Ä
ÅÆ ï ärklig
ol (U III 46,1) signifies ‘The divine teacher is mighty’, bo nišan män
MïÀ ÇÈÉdÊËBÌÍÎÐÏÑ (USp 1,10) ‘This mark is mine – MiÒ ÓÕÔ&Ön×Ø?ÙUÚÙÜÛ If,
however, the overall meaning was ‘As for X, it is Y’, these translations
should be ‘As for the divine teacher, he is mighty’ and ‘As for this
mark, it is mine, M.T.’s’ respectively.
In ÝÞßJÞàJÞáãâäæåç¨Þè
é=Þä¨ÞÝêç/âä ëÐì=íî?ç6ïèð)Þ
éñìò î?âçóòð ïka (Suv 372,12) ‘It
is my wish to pray to him who enlightens the whole world’ the phrase
küsüšüm ol could be paraphrased with küsäyür män since it governs the
small clause around the -gUlXk form; ol is clearly needed for linking
the topic küsüšüm to its predicate. In Kulsabadi xatunlï Vipula•andrï
teginli bolar ikigü mäniô lär ol ‘(The god Indra said:) ”Princess
Kuli•avat• and prince Vipulacandra, these two, they are both mine”’ (U
III 27,16) ol serves as copula. Reference to the princess and the prince
is left-dislocated (see section 4.4); bolar ikigü then takes up this
reference and ‘mine’ is predicated on that. The second suffix in
mäniô lär is the mark of number agreement between topic and
607 The composite suffix -mAk+lXg is dealt with in OTWF pp. 153-155 but not its
predicative use which we find in this sentence: Here the meaning appears to be a simple
present.
SYNTAX 415
Then consider the sentence kayu ärki beš? (MaitH Y 143) in the
following context: asag tusu kïlmakï ymä beš türlüg ogrïn bolur. kayu
ärki beš tep tesär, älEmonp7m*q3q(q ‘His bringing benefit (to living beings)
takes place in five ways. Which five these are?608 Firstly, ...’. beš
‘five’, which takes up the reference of beš türlüg ogur, must be the
topic while kayu ‘which’, left -dislocated as so often with interrogative
pronouns, is comment.
608 tep tesär ‘if one says’ has not be en translated here: This is a very common strategy
for asking rhetorical questions then answered by the author. See section 3.343 for ärki.
SYNTAX 417
609 Note the ellipsis of the nominative in the second part of the disjunctive
construction.
610 ‘whatsoever’ transla tes nä ärsär; see section 3.134 for this expression of
generality. Cf. kim ärsär in the U IV C152 sentence in the previous paragraph.
418 CHAPTER FOUR
can even be topics, as in the proverb bar bakïr, yok altun (DLT fol.
181) “What is present is (like) copper (one cares nought about it), what
is absent is (precious like) gold”.
Sentences of existence are transferred away from the present by
verbal means; e.g. yana ymä bar ärdi sikwen atlïg nomÎ ï aÎÏÐ ï (HTs
VIII 76) ‘Moreover, there was the preacher and teacher named Qi
Xuan’. Both amtïka tägi takï bar ärür (BT I A2 4) ‘It (i.e. a Ñ ÒÓÔ$Õ ) still
exists even till now’ and ïnÖ ïp amtï yertinÖ×7ØBÙÛÚÜÞÝßÕàâáãÜ7àäÙÔ×7Ô
(MaitH XI 15r20) ‘However, this character does not exist on earth at
present’ show the adverb amtï; är-ür was apparently joined to bar and
to yok to show that the present in the narrow sense is meant.
In ädgü kïlïn•ï bar ärip ... (BT II 1201) ‘(if) he has good deeds (to his
favour) and ...’ and ol äki kiši bar ärsär ‘since there are those two
persons’ we see that bar needs the copula to get subordinated. Unlike
in Turkish, bar and yok are not replaced by the converb of the copula
in case of subordination; the copula is added to the construction as it
is: kimni• birök kü •i küsüni bar ärip täv kür al ï altagï yok ärsär ...
(PañcÖlm 263) ‘Whoever, however, has power (bar ärip; but) has no
tricks and guiles, ...’.
Expressions like ÓÜå æEçJÕèçÕÔé(êÖ@é ëLè<ÓÙà7éaÓ ïnl(ï)glarïg näÖÙìÙBí*î/ÙBÓ!îã×å×7à
tolgakguluk erintürgülük busanturguluk išlär küdüglär ärsär,… (TT
II,2 41-46) ‘However many matters there may be for which to cause
pain and affliction to all the creatures in samï ðJñò$ó ’ or ô7õ@ô@ö÷óøù7ú<ûóYó7ö$ú<ù
ärinätüv atlïg balïkta ärnem atlïg elig xan ärti (Aranü emi 1 a r13)
‘Many generations ago there was a king named Aranü emi in the city
named Arunü ý þ<ÿ
Lÿ är- by itself was also used for expressing
existence.
In the following sentences är- expresses possession: bögü biliglig
burxanlarnï iki törlüg ät’özläri ärür (Mait 26A r11) ‘the wise minded
Buddhas have two types of bodies’; sözläšgü (UigBrief D) ‘if
you have anything to discuss’. In käk birlä katïglïg savlar kö
ärmiškä (BT II 991) the translation can be existential (‘because there
are things mixed with hate in one’s heart’) or possessive (‘because one
has ... in one’s heart’).
ol, primarily ‘that’ but also widely used as copula, is also found in
sentences indicating existence: ordo balïk ked[in tagdïn] bulu ïnta altï
bär[ä …] bir sä "!$# (HTs III 273) ‘6 miles to the north-west from
the
%'&(
capital there is a monastery’;%
611 ol tamuta ymä ülgüsüz üküš
ïrlïg suvïn tolu ulug eši )*# (DKPAMPb 63) ‘Now in that hell
there are countlessly numerous large pots full of potash water’.
611 Assuming that the lacuna did not contain anything relevant to this matter.
SYNTAX 419
In other cases, deverbal noun dummies are used for filling object
slots: This, I suspect, is the main reason for the appearance of ölüt in
ölüt ölür- ‘to carry out a massacre’ with the verb just mentioned, and
@'ABCDE@<ABCF
- ‘to slander’ (both documented in OTWF 310 -11). yol in
yol yorï- ‘to travel’ and nom in nom nomla- ‘to preach’ could have
been replaced by more specific terms if the speaker / writer had
deemed them necessary or had been able to supply them. The
appearance of verbal abstract objects is obligatory when these are to be
accompanied by their subjects; the phrases arslan silkinigin (or
AF?GHAIKJLHMJI"@ONGPJIKJLHMJI"@ONHQ
silkinmäkin) silkin-, arslan yatgïšïn yat- and -
are quoted in OTWF 204. yol yorï- shows that a real etymological
connection is not necessary between the two elements, although
alliteration does appear to be the general rule.
Adjuncts, which express, among other matters, when, where, how or
why the event referred to by the sentence takes place, are generally not
made obligatory by the grammar. They can consist of phrases or
clauses. See section 3.3 for adjuncts, section 4.2 for adjunct phrases
and section 4.63 for adjunct clauses.
Predication is sometimes shared between a verb and a nominal, which
is unmarked for case. There are three types of this:
Firstly, some intransitive verbs are able to govern descriptive
I
Q
N@<NI$RCGCBH)C'SUT<Q"HDMJ V
predicative adjectives, e.g. busušlug in iz?
‘Why did you come in sorrow?’ (KP 4,5). Thus also the quantity
@WA"HLTOC-T<A"HXSYA[Z
adjective alku in ädgü törö ädgü kïlïn (TT II,1 21) ‘Good
habits and good deeds will all stay’. Similarly, certain transitive verbs
also govern adjectives @\AF
which they predicatively apply to their direct
objects, as in sakïn ïg tut (ChrManMsFr, ChrFr v 12) ‘Keep (your)
thoughts pure!’.
Thirdly, a transitive verb can govern two nouns or pronouns as
objects; the second noun (in the nominative) here tells us what the first V
(inV the accusative case) is made to turn into: inscriptional özümün ö rä
bï a bašï ïttï ‘Myself he sent (ïd-) forward (as) captain’; Uygur äki
kïzïn tapïg berti ‘He gave his two daughters (as) tribute’ or altï azïgïn
T<Q Z_J^T<@JT<Q`RCB
]]^] ï berü (HTs III 259-60) ‘(The white elephant) gave his
six molars to the hunter (as) alms’. A reversal in the order of topic and
comment is not excluded; theI
@b topic remains evident by being marked
QG[QIcT
with the accusative suffix: a ïlzun mini (U II 64,9) ‘May he
make me be well and in peace’. We quoted instances with the verbs ïd-
, ber- and kïl-; yarat- ‘to create’ and ata- ‘to nominate’ are also used
with two objects.
SYNTAX 421
612 There is no evidence that -mA , which serves as negative counterpart of -dA in
the inscriptions, was used as a participle; in Uygur we find -mAdA I in participial use.
-dOk forms, on the other hand, are never found in finite use, though -mAdOk is.
613 In the second case it might be necessary to end the sentence with ol (see section
4.31), as e.g. in kök tä
?<
ïn kïlmïšlar ol (HtsBiogr 130) ‘They have done it in the
manner of heavens’.
422 CHAPTER FOUR
stone, on this wall, sitting (at it) for 20 days’. ölügi yurtda yolta yatu
kalta•ï ärtigiz (KT N9) ‘(All these, my mother the queen, my mothers,
elder sisters, daughters in law and princesses, who would survive
would become female slaves); the dead among you would be left lying
in deserted camps and on the road’: The adjective ölüg ‘dead’ is the
subject of the 2nd person plural verb phrase kalta•ï ärtigiz . Here an
example from the 4th (runiform) Stein ms. (l.6): atï öz apa totok ulatï
kamïg atlïg yüzlüg otuz är kältimiz ‘thirty of us came, all men of
renown, the (ruler’s) nephew Ö. A. totok and the others’. The best
rendering of the content of this Old Turkic sentence into English
included a series of appositions, but this does not correspond to its
actual structure: That presents 30 men with certain attributes and
mentioning one of them, as formal subject of a 1st person plural finite
verb.
-mA- negates verb forms. Double negation gives positive meaning, as
-mAdOkXm yok, or in tïnlïg oglanï yok kim mäni ögüm ka ïm ...
bolmadï ärsär ‘there are no living beings who did not become my
parents’. The following negates the copula instead of the topic or the
predicate: alko tïnlïglar mäni yatïm ärmäzlär ‘All beings are not
foreign to me (= none are my strangers)’. The negativity of a super -
ordinated verb does not extend to a subordinated one; one example
among many is takï kamag kamlar ter(i)läp nä tirgürmägäy ‘Even all
the magicians will, assembling, definitely not bring him back to life’.
Therefore, converbs have to be additionally negated: burxan kutïlïg
O'
"'
ï(y)a ymä tïnmatïn kïlguluk iši ä ... arïtï armadï (U
IVA 272) ‘Not leaving off a bit in his wish for Buddhadom he did not
at all get tired ... of the task he was to carry out’.
The second way to analyse a sentence (the first way being what we
looked at in section 4.3) is to deal with the flow and organization of
information taking place in it. In Old Turkic the most salient means for
this purpose is constituent order. The content of sentences in which the
same information is organized differently will generally be understood
in the same way as far as truth values are concerned.
The order of sentence constituents is in Old Turkic strongly topic –
comment oriented in all stages of the language, all styles and text sorts
and all putative dialects; other purposes served by constituent order
can be iconicity (‘first noted first mentioned’), the linking of elements
to previous sentences and the forward motion of the plot. When the
topic is purely deictic, the relevant pronoun is added after the
SYNTAX 423
614 The +g is a variant of the 2nd person possessive suffix, here referring to the
beneficient of ‘the good’, i.e. the advantage.
615 In Turkish such trace demonstratives are unstressed. This must have been the case
also in Old Turkic, where they are placed after the predicate instead of being in the
normal topic position yat-agma is a participle representing the subject of the action of
‘lying down’.
424 CHAPTER FOUR
616 We know that tä Ë ÌÎÍÐÏÑÒ0ÍÐÓÔÍ Õ is not a vocative standing outside the sentence, as it is
preceded by the vocative tä ÖÌÍ Ï×Ñ[ÒPÍ Ó . The sentence is followed by another two, which
show a similar structure.
SYNTAX 425
I said’. otg[urak] kertgünzün bo savag (TT X 467) ‘Let her put all her
trust in these words!’ In Suv 609,11 the prince who is ready to sacrifice
his body for the hungry tigress says: bulgay ärki biz yeg adrok buyanïg
‘We will maybe (or ‘hopefullly’) attain excellent punê ya’. Great
emotion also brings the verb to initial position: muë ay muë ay, yitirmiš
män isig sävär amrak atayïmïn ‘Oh sorrow, oh sorrow, I have lost my
dear baby, whom I love warmly’ (Suv 623,10); kalmïš süë ük yer sayu,
ïì í ïnmïš män känìîLï´îðñóò[ô"õ'ôöø÷"ï7ö ÷ùú÷"û÷ ü ïmïn (Suv 626,16-17) ‘The
bones lie around everywhere, I have lost my baby, my dear chick
whom (I) love’. The sentence ašukmaz mu köëýþ)ýë , finally, was written
by an old father in a letter he sent to his son in an emotional plea to
come for a visit (UigBrief C12); it signifies ‘Doesn’t your heart yearn
(for us)?’ but a freer translation in the context could be ‘Aren’t you
homesick?’
A causal relationship between events can bring the verbs to the fore
and make them precede subjects: ymä yegädti y(a)rok kün k(a)rarïg
tünüg alë ÷ÿ
ûö ÿ ï … ymä anta ken [är]ksinür elänür eliglär xanlar
(M III nr.8 III v10-15) ‘And the bright day
vanquished the dark night and weakened it; … and thereupon they rule
and govern, the kings and rulers, within their own realms’.
Converb phrases connecting with the pre-text can precede the subject
when the action is a direct reaction: munï körüp bodisatv ... ärti ü
korkdï sezinti (Suv 630,10) ‘When he saw this, the bodhisattva, ... he
became exceedingly frightened ... and worried’; anï körüp yäklär bägi
!#"%$'&(
vayširvanï tä ïg közin yïglayu ... (TT X 296) ‘When he saw
)+*,().-/)+*0213'4563879)+*:0;580<=3'>@?A)+*0CBD3852EF,HG IJLK MNONHPRQQQ@STFUVTWDXRUVYX+SZU[T(X
timing (üd), the sons of men are all born to die.’ The reason for üd
‘time’ lacking the accusative suffix might be its genericity ; the
sentence
is uttered in consolation for death. In örgün anta yaratïtdïm,
ït anta tokïtdïm (ŠU) the unmarked direct objects precede the
locatives, which are in focus: ‘It was there that I had my throne (örgün)
erected and a (border) fence ( ït) set up’. In bo buyanag äF ''¡¢F¢8£a¤¡¢D¡
biz tä'¡¤%¥8 ¦§ s¨H©§¥¤ª©«¦§¢s¬D¡®(©¬D¯;°¢D'¡¤:±²8¦§±'¡9°¢8¡´³H¢D¯@¤ªµ[¤ ¶·³
±8° ïD¬ and similar
sentences in the colophon of MaitH Y, the deflection of puņya (buyan
ävir-) is topic, the person to whom it is deflected (in dative case) the
relevant new information.
sit together and be happy, that person should perform good deeds’. It
can then happen, as in this example, that it attracts the verb away from
clause-final position. Even more so with real interrogatives with 1st or
2nd person subjects: näkä täzär biz (Tuñ 38) ‘What are we fleeing
from?’; kämkä elig kazganur män (KT E9) ‘Whom am I conquering
countries for?’; /1z) usušlug kälti iz? (KP 4,5) ‘Why did you
come (back) saddened?’; nägülük ölürür sizlär ‘Why do you kill?’; nä
tusu bolgay ‘What use will it be?’; ' / 1 :a¡ ï sakïnur siz ‘Where
are you planning to go? In DKPAMPb 840 a child addresses his father
with a chain of five rhetorical questions, two of them with mU after the
verb, two with left dislocation of wh° forms and one (marked by ärki)
with the pronoun in situ; these are: ' / 1¢ ï säni£-¤ ¥- ¤-¦ ïlïg
ädgü sakïn ï §©¨)ª6«¬ªU®-¯'®)¬°«
ª$¬ª«w±)¬/²B³'´¶µ-«·´:µ/²F´:µa¸¹ªUº-»½¼ ï berti¾ §
yarlïkan¯'»-¯ ï kö¾ ®-¸=® ¾ ¨'³-¬/²B³s¿]ª6²¸¹ª$¬ª ÀÁº-³1Âà ï ärki? ‘Which way did your
good thoughts linked to Buddhahood go? For whom have you given me
as alms to cause me so much pain? Where did your pity disappear to, I
wonder?’. In the following ins tance, finally, the nominalized topic is
pushed out of initial position by an interrogative: nä tusu bolur (or:
bulur) ol ädgü kün, ol ädgü üd körmiši talulamïšï (TT VI 23) ‘Of what
use will it be (to him) that he looked for and found out a suitable day
and a suitable hour?’
If the verbal content is not predicative (i.e. not part of the
‘comment’), the sentence can be clefted by putting the verb into non -
SYNTAX 431
619 The various causative suffixes are in complementary distribution for some of the
stem shapes as defined phonologically, but not in all cases. They should be treated as
separate suffixes both for this reason, and because their grammatical characteristics by
no means overlap completely.
SYNTAX 433
620 This has the secondary meaning ‘to get fever’. Röhrborn 2000: 272 points out a
similar development behind Turkish ðiñ òóñ ôöõø÷ ‘fever’ and the verb ùiúùû - ‘to catch a
cold’. Another such case is Turkish ü ýÿþ ‘malaria’, which comes from ý üý -t-ma.
434 CHAPTER FOUR
bir ikintiškä ‘one another’, which appears as bir ikintikä in M I 9,9 and
Maue 1996 44a v6; alternatively, they have one participant vying with
(birlä) another, the parties being either direct or indirect objects of
each other. The content of ‘vying’ is not necessarily linked to the use
!
of -(X)š-; cf. ïnalïm biz ‘Let us compete with
each other in strength’ (Wettkampf 41 -43); DreiPrinz 119-120 has no
doubt also been correctly completed as [bir] ikinti birlä. The
cooperating or vying participants in an action are either both subjects,
or one party is the subject, carrying out the action with or against the
other. However, even in this latter case and when the subject is
singular, Old Turkic (unlike Western European languages) puts the
verb in the plural; inim Köl Tegin birlä sözläšdimiz (KT E 26), e.g.,
signifies ‘I discussed the matter with my younger brother Köl Tegin’.
One of the original meanings of the -(X)š- formative (retained to this
day in Kïrgïz) may have been the expression of verbal plurality; thus
"$#%&'()'*",+
- ! &%
e.g. in ïšdï ‘on the 13th of the 5th month they
made an uprising’ in Tariat S3, referring to the Türk tribes after getting
vanquished by the Uygur confederation. See OTWF 578-583 for more
details.
Verbs formed with -(X)n- are reflexive or middle (in which case they
can govern direct objects) or anti-transitive (intransitive derivates of
transitive bases); a number of them can be semantically characterised
as having an abstract metaphorical meaning distinct from the concrete
meaning of their base. See OTWF 634-639 for details on the syntax
and semantics of -(X)n- verbs. Verbs formed with the rare and obsolete
-(X)d- formative all show middle voice while all -(X)k- and -lXn- verbs
(the first discussed in OTWF 650-51, the second in OTWF 641-42) are
anti-transitive. Sentences need not have any of these forms to show
0//1+*234"65
middle content: el[ig] bäg ... özi. (HTs III 739), e.g.
signifies ‘The king ... had a house made for himself to live in’.
-sXk- forms sentences with the patient (a creature with a will of its
own) as subject (like a passive) but (in a few examples) the accusative
of something by which the subject suffers; see OTWF 705-6. All -tXz-
verbs (as all -sXk- verbs) have transitive bases; they represent the
subject as responsible for the action he undergoes, and get the active
causee in the dative case; see OTWF 709 for the use of verbs formed
with this suffix.
When a subject slot is not filled and no zero anaphor is in sight
either, the subject can be ‘any appropriate argument’; ‘somebody’ in
the example tämirlig olïgïn olïmïš osuglug (MaitH XVNachtr 4r25) ‘as
if somebody had wrung (them, i.e. foetuses in their mothers’ belly)
with an iron wrench’: The verb olï- has no explicit subject. It would
SYNTAX 435
have been wrong to translate ‘as if wrung with a ... wrench’ as the verb
was not passivized. In section 5.2 we deal with impersonal necessity,
where the speaker / writer uses various means for expressing a
directive he applies to anybody. The conditional does not need to fill
the subject slot either: 798:;<7=76>?A@B;AC*DE@E;FG76>H;AC ïl sanïn sanasar tükäl tört
mï?C ïl ärtdi; yal?8HJIKF ïnL KNMO PGI>@Q>%R;PJCSD7;THUR7V;TKR7 ï yüz tümän yïl
ärtmiš ärür (MaitH X 1v10-12) ‘If (one) reckons it by the years of the
divine tusW ita country 4000 years all in all went by; if (one) sums it up
by human reckoning 57 kotX is and 6 million years have passed’. Using
tep tesär ‘if one says’ is a very common strategy for asking rhetorical
questions then answered by the author himself; ‘one’ here represents a
hypothetical interlocutor.
Such non-reference to subjects happens also with finite verb forms,
as with tägir in the following passage: YZ\[*YZ6]^N_^` ïp arïtï sansardïn
ozgalï bolmaz; kayu üdün bo tüzün yol]^a_^`,b^`NcdBe-fgihjlkm\`n^%e ïš
ürüg amal nirvan balïkka tägir (MaitH Y 328) ‘Going by that way it is
quite impossible to get free from sam o pqrns ; when one takes this
621 Sections 4.61, 4.62 and 4.63 thus roughly correspond to the tasks of adjectives,
nouns and adverbs. The term ‘adjunct’ has a wider sense than ‘adverbial’, since
adjuncts and adjunct constructions can qualify not only verbs but also whole clauses.
436 CHAPTER FOUR
the other examples I have come across, the satellite is linked to the
head by the genitive. For the content cf. $%* ïmïš tankarïg ïdmïš
yazoklarïm ‘my sins of having broken precepts and having relinquished
vows’ ( l.46 in the text edited by M. Ölmez in Laut & Ölmez 1998:
267). In amtï kö ¡ ¢%£¤¥!¦%£¨§© © © ¤ ïn 画« £«¬¥¦\¥!¤®«¬-¥
£¯A¥¦ ¤ £ ïrak tarkargïl (TT X 136) ‘Get rid of any sorrow or worry
there is in your heart through the joy of having seen me’ the subject of
mini körmiš (the satellite) is inherited from the main verb, a 2nd person
imperative. In TT X 520-521 the reference is explicit in the anaphoric
use of the genitive form anï which also qualifies the head: anï°®«n£
± ©¦ 6 ¤ ï ... tä«E¥²§%©« ¦N¦G³¬ ïn äšidmiš tï¡ ¬ ïš ögrätigi üzä bo šlok
nom kö ¡¥¦ £´¤ £%¡ ¥ ‘Through his experience (ögrätig) in a previous
existence of ... having heard and having listened to (äšidmiš tï¡ ¬ ïš)
the teaching of the divine Buddha, the following doctrinal verse came
to his mind:’. yarokïn bizi•ärü kälürdi ärsär, biz adrok adrok etip
yaratïp nomka kigürsüg törö bar ärti (Xw 167) ‘There was the rule
that, whenever he conveyed his light to us, we (in turn) were supposed
to prepare and organize it each in its special way and to introduce it to
religion’ is an instance where the verbal no un kigür-süg (< kigür- ‘to
introduce’) is accompanied by a nominative subject, biz. In ävirtgäli
ötünmiš ötügi£ (BT II 114) ‘upon the request of ... to have (the punµ ya)
deflected’ the head and the qualifying verbal form happen to be
etymologically related; English request is able to govern a phrase such
as to have it translated but in Old Turkic ötüg had to be qualified by
ötünmiš, a form less nounier than request to govern the supine in -gAlI.
In s䥫 ¥¦ £J©%¡©¶ 6 ·E¸£J§©«9¹ ¦J³¡³«©º «¡ ïkamïš ïz ol (HTs III
974) ‘On a large rock at the foot of a promontory there is (ol) the mark
of Buddha having sat there’, ïz ‘trace’ is not a participant or a
circumstantial of the action of Buddha’s sitting but its result. I am not
aware that ‘result’ can be expressed as a circumstantial in Old Turkic;
if that were possible, this particular -mIš clause would also be a
relative clause. I take this to be the criterion distinguishing between
relativisation and qualification by clauses referring to the action as
such, in any case holding for the instances mentioned in the previous
paragraph.
Synthetical relative clauses precede their head while analytical
relative clauses follow it. In the following example there is,
exceptionally, a right-branching synthetical relative clause (with
sözlädä ¥ ‘pronouncing’ and tutda ï ‘upholding’): kim kayu tïnlïglar,
bo ïdok darni nomug sözlädä ¥ © ¢ ï, ögüzlärdä köllärdä ulug taluy
ögüz i ¥¦ £ ©¯B¤ ¤¥«B¥ º*©¦ «¡ «¼»¾½½½ (Dh¿ À Á ÂÄÃAÅ ‘If any creatures
reciting and upholding this holy incantation get into rivers, into lakes
438 CHAPTER FOUR
or into the sea and wash, ...’. This instance can also be considered an
apposition. In the following sentence there is an analytical relative
clause introduced by kim and following its head: bar mu ärki antag
tïnlïglar kim bo nom ärdini tïltagïnta bo ok közünür aÆ ÇÈÉ6ʾËÌÍ*Î tüškä
É6Ë Í\Ì%Ë%ÏAÐ (Suv 2,16, the introduction) ‘I wonder whether there are such
creatures as attain good results (i.e. achieve their goals) right here in
this visible world because of this sÑ tra jewel’. What is here being
relativised is not a finite verb as generally in analytical relative clauses,
but a participle without a copula. This is also rather rare but not as rare
as right-branching participles without kim. It may not be a coincidence
that the forms in both passages are -dAÏ I participles, as there may have
been some reminiscence of -dAÏ I in finite use, as in Orkhon Turkic.
622 This is how we have to translate bilir in this sentence and ÝÞàßá$âäã in the previous
one, since the main verbs are in the past tense.
SYNTAX 439
let itself get into an angry frame of mind‘ (U III 42,13); cf. the common
phrase köåæçTèéBê<ë -. In æìíÄîï savïn sïmaglï … tärs azag nomlaglar (M
III nr.12 r3) ‘the … propounders of heretic doctrines, who do not
contradict the words of the three demons’, the -(X)glI participle is
negated. ol törötä yïgïlmïš näìîðïêòñê<ç6îé4îé$ëêîéäóîé ‘All the people who
were assembled at that ceremony ...’ (Suv 5,8 -9) has a relative clause
with -mIš qualifying its subject.
2) In yagï alkïnmïš yula (Mait 103v11) ‘a beacon whose oil has been
consumed’ and közi körmäz kiši (MaitH XV 8r25) ‘a person whose
eyes do not see’ the possessive suffix added to yag ‘oil’ and to köz
‘eye’, the subjects of the relativised verbs, refers to the heads , showing
that they (i.e. yag and köz respectively) in some way or another
‘belong’ to these heads (yula and kiši respectively): These are
examples for the ôõö÷ø é ùú\û construction with participles in the
adnominal predication. The eye is, of course, an inalienable part of a
person’s body, and oil was a necessary and commonly known
ingredient of oil lamps.
3) Participles can also be used for relativization when heads are direct
objects. In the following two clauses, the subject türk bodun is
supplied both from the matrix clause and from the possessive suffixes
added to the heads: türk bodun ellädök elin ïüný ïnu ïdmïš, xaganladok
xaganïn yetürü ïdmïš ‘the Türk nation let their realm, which they had
created, slip away, and lost their emperor, whom they had crowned’
(KT E 6).
When the relative clause is to refer to 1st and 2nd person subjects of
the relativised verb, the reference is normally effected by a possessive
suffix on the head, e.g. in aydok isäþ äz(i)n tükäti islädämäz (M I
10,13) ‘we have fully carried out the task you told us to do’. In künkä
ašadokumuz beš täþ ri yarokï ‘the light of the fivefold god which we
absorb during the day’ (Xw 201) however, the subject appears as a
possessive suffix on the verb form.
Rarely, early sources use -mIš forms also for perfect relativisation:
ÿ
ü
ïz tutmïš yer suv (KT E19) ‘the territory which our
ancestors ruled’. In Manichæan sources this happens only when there
is to be no explicit reference to the subject: etmiš yaratmïš tatïglïg aš
‘a well-prepared and tasteful meal’ (runiform ms. TM 342 1 r4 -5,
ÿ ÿ
KöktüTurf 1056); sizlärdä almïš agu xormuzta t(ä)þ
Eû àý
(M I 19,15) ‘I will shoot the poison taken from you at the god
Ohrmizd’. In sözlämäsig ir û üý ‘a loathsome expression not to
be uttered’ (Xw 198) the head is also the direct object of the verb; here
440 CHAPTER FOUR
623 Note that reference to the subject of the sentence is deleted from the two relative
clauses, where there is zero reference to the indirect object.
SYNTAX 441
6) The head is often the place where the action or event described by
the adnominal clause takes place. In inscriptional el tutsuk yer ‚the
place to rule the realm from‘ (KT S 4), Manichæan bo tugar ölür
tIu;v4wOxy5z{|tu;v~} ‘this world in which one gets born and dies’ (M 126 +
M 502m + M 201 quoted in the note to BT V 217) or Buddhist ölüg
kämišgülük ... [ay]ïg oron ol (HTs III 721) 'It is a bad (?) place, (used)
for deposing corpses'there is no explicit subject, though one might
consider the rulers of the Türk empire to be the implicit subject in the
first example. In ötrö olormïš oronïntïn örü turup ... ‚Then he stood up
from the seat he had been sitting on, and ...‘ (TT VI 011) and käntü
öznü• olorur oro nïn kötürü turur (BT VII B44) ‘he keeps lifting the
seat on which he is himself sitting’ there is reference to the subject in
the possessive suffix added to the head. ymä zruš• [burxan] ärtöki
yerdä ‚at the place where Zarathustra stayed‘ (ManUigFr p. 401, 10),
on the other hand, has an explicit nominal subject in the nominative;
the pronominal reference to this subject is on the verb and not on the
head (cf. the expression quoted under (3) from Xw 201). [ana]nt
arxant ... ötrö olormïš orontïn turup ... (HTs III 678) ‘The arhat
nanda ... then got up from where he had been sitting and ...’ is very
similar to the TT VI and BT VII passages just quoted, but shows no
anaphoric reference to the subject ( nanda) either on the -mIš form or
on the head, as appears to be usual with local heads. In runiform
inscriptions the possessive suffix is wholly absent when the reference
exists but is made superfluous by the context: 4
5; ‚the place
where (we) routed (them)‘ (ŠU W7); with a 2nd person subject, bardok
yerdä ‚in the places where (you) went‘ (KT E24 = BQ E20); tä ri
yarlïkadï, yañdïmïz ... yañdok yolta ymä ölti kök (Tuñ I S9) ‘God
ordered (so, and) we dispersed (them) ... those whom (we) dispersed
died right on the road’.
7) In yanmas yerdä oztumuz (M III nr.16 v3) ‚We escaped the place of
no return’ the head is the source of the activity described by the verb,
the place from which no creatures come back. tugmïš atamïz (BT XIII
5,7-8) ‘our real father’ literally signifies ‘the father from whom we
442 CHAPTER FOUR
were born’: The father is the sourc e of the event (unless one wants to
reduce fathers’ task at reproduction to instrumental function).
9) The head can refer to the time of the event; with perfect participle:
ïdok elig ulušug agïr basïp oronka olormïš tokuz yegirmin ïlïnta
(DKPAMPb 29-30) ‘in the 19th year of his having subdued the divine
nation and country (el uluš) and of having acceeded the throne.’ With
imperfect participle: yïlïm yašïm adïrtlïg bilmäz üdtä (HTs VII 331) ‘at
a time when my age was one in which I did not perceive matters
clearly’. The necessitative -gU and -gUlXk forms qualify terms
referring to projected time; e.g. yula tamturgu künlär (TT VII 40,112)
‘the days on which one is to light a torch’ or amtï ma a burxan kutïn
bulguluk üd yagumïš ärür ‘Now the time has come near for me to
attain Buddhahood’ or ‘the time when I should attain Buddhahood is
near’ . In bodisavtnï T,I ' .¡ ¡.¢£¢' ‘in the
third watch, during which the bodhisattva is to descend into the ocean’
(MaitH XV 6r24), the subject appears with the genitive suffix, not
taken up by any 3rd person possessive suffix (the Mait is one of the
earliest Buddhist Uygur texts). In the following example in which
-gUlXk again qualifies üd, reference to the subject is handled in still
another way: In ol tïnlïglar kälgülük üdintä ‘at the time when those
creatures were expected to come’ (Suv 19,19) the subject is referred to
both by a nominal phrase in the nominative and by the possessive
suffix on the head.
stayed’ , on the other hand, the possessive suffix added to the -dOk
forms refers back to the subject. Among the modern Turkic languages,
Turkish and (in the 1st and 2nd persons) Azeri as well as Tuvan place an
agentive possessive suffix onto the end of the relative form (as in the
two examples quoted last) while others join it onto the head. Still
other Turkic languages (among them again Azeri, though only in the
3rd person) express pronominal subjects by independent pronouns only.
2) In the examples discussed under 1) the kim clause is used for subject
qualification. In the following example, however, the head (ädgü) is
the indirect object of the relativised verb (tägmä- ‘not to attain’): tä$";K&
tä$";K&M]?&^B!E";`_7+.!. ï$a5X243bQN248L&c%Q"$!3!8W&c) ägmiš iši küdügi üzä yok antag
ädgü kim tägmägülük (HtsPar 14 r22) ‘Through the activity reached by
the benevolence of Buddha the god of gods, there is no such good as
one cannot expect to attain.’ Note that here, as in the last example
mentioned, the antecedent is qualified by antag ‘such’; unlike that
instance, however, this subordinate clause cannot be understood as
having consecutive meaning. Thus also in the following instance, in
ms. T I D 200 l.18:624 nä$V+.)+2U4IK;4U4T"%%"&('d8E",WU+.)+eQA&)T!8EfU4T"%c5;g]/5;
624 Quoted in the n. to TT V A 23. This is an early text, as it has twice kanyu+garu
where later texts have kayu, twice the -(X)glI participle and /z/ is in some cases spelled
with two dots.
446 CHAPTER FOUR
625 Cf. l.48 in the same text: ïn ªG«¬G«-®M¯ ï tumlïg suv, kim isig suvka katsar sogïtïr ‘just as
cold water which, when one adds it to warm water, cools (it)’ (translated rather freely
by the editor). Alternately, kim may have been introduced in analogy to other sentences
in the context; without it, the clause signifies ‘just as, when one adds warm water to
cold water, it becomes agreeable ...’.
626 Zieme in a review by Sundermann in BSOAS 40(1977):635, reviewing a text
collection by McKenzie. Zieme says that the note is late because the second bitig
appears without possessive suffix; that phenomenon is discussed in section 4.121.
SYNTAX 447
627 Note that the ‘daugher’ has to precede the ‘prince’s father’ in the English
translation but not in its Uygur counterpart.
628 There is a king both among the guests and among the hosts, so that an exchange of
presents would be normal.
448 CHAPTER FOUR
had seen Buddha’. In the first rea ding the subordinate clause stands in
apposition; in the second this is a case of the correlative constructions
described in section 4.65. Note that the element kim is not at the
beginning of the clause it serves, since the object bo dyan sakïnº» ïg
kiši+g precedes it. If this etymology is correct, kim might originally
have been used exclusively for human antecedents. The idea that the
particle kim comes from kim ‘who’ gets support from the instance in
which kayu ‘which’ is used for relativisation (quoted under (1) above
from TT X), as this is also an interrogative-indeifinite pronoun. Note
that the scope of English relative which for antecedents is also
narrower that its scope as interrogative pronoun.
629 The editor writes kïlmïšïg but the facs. seems to be clear enough.
SYNTAX 449
Subject and object clauses are the most common types of complement
clauses, dealt with in sections 4.621 and 4.622 respectively. Here we
will mention a few rarer types, representing an indirect object, an
instigator (both in the dative case) and a predicate nominal (in the
nominative).
Headless relative clauses serving as indirect objects are put into the
dative case (of the verb ïnan- in the following sentence): ïnanur biz
kapïgïnta kün tä×"ØKÙÛÚ"ØÜ7ÝÜ7Þ ïška (HTs VII 1238) ‘We believe in him at
whose gate the sun has installed itself’. In tä× ØKÙ(ßÙ^Þ=àÜáÜÚ!Þ=ß ï män
tegmäkä artïzïp ... (Xw) ‘letting oneself get deceived by somebody
who says “I represent God, I am a preacher”’ te-gmä (imperfect
-(X)gmA participle of te- ‘to say’) serves as subject of the subordinate
clause and, at the same time, as instigator for the superordinated verb
artïz-. The instigator status, in Old Turkic also signalled by the dative
case, cannot be equated either with subject or with object (see section
4.5); it should not be considered an adjunct either, as the instigator is a
real participator in the event.
The status of the predicative participle should also be clearly
distinguished from that of subject: In savï yarlïgï yorïgan bolur
(Schwitz 17) ‘He becomes one whose words and orders prevail’ there
is zero reference to the subject, and savï yarlïgï yorïgan is predicative.
Note that the form yorï-gan is accompanied by its subjects, sav+ï ‘his
word’ and yarlïg+ï ‘his command’, which are linked to the topic by the
possessive suffixes.
nor like resting during the day‘ (Tuñ I S5); ötüg tiläk bulgulukï sarp ‘It
is difficult to obtain what one wishes’. With the aorist: bir ymä ärüri
yok ärip ‘nor is there any unity, and ...’. With perfect parti ciple
(transferred to final position by interjectional interrogative): nä tusu
bolur (or: bulur) ol ädgü kün, ol ädgü üd körmiši talulamïšï (TT VI 23)
‘Of what use will it be (to him) that he looked for and found out a
suitable day and a suitable hour?’ In it ürdöki kuš üni ... äštilmäz ‚No
barking of dogs and no voice of birds is heard ...‘ (M III nr.32 r1) the
action nominal is the subject of a passive verb.
The infinite verb forms refer to the direct object of the subordinated
verb in ätözin alku kayu kïlmïšlarïm mandal mudur burxanlarnïíïîMð?î
bolzun; tïlïn alku keí!ñ"ò/ñVó-ôõNö
÷!øÕîRð-ö
÷òKî>ødùRù(ù!ú7û!ògüî7üýøÿþûú7ûöûò ï bolzun;
köí!ñ!öLîRü[ûö^ó/û ïnmïš ömišlärim sakïn?ó ïz yaruk yašuk mani bolzun (ls.
40-44 in baxšï ögdisi, edited by M. Ölmez, Laut & Ölmez 1998: 267)
‘May all and any thing which I did (kïl-) with my body become
man d ala, øú!ò and the Buddhas’ business; may all I speak about
(sözlä-) in detail become incantations and verses of teaching; may all I
think of (sakïn- ö-) in my heart become untroubled bright pearls’. A
further example: saí
ï)rtak temiši sudur vinay abidaram übû
4ö ïk
nomlar tetirlär (MaitH Y 265) ‘The type they call (te-) sam vr ti is
considered to consist of the books of !"#$&%# ' and
tripit( aka’; the possessiv e suffix on temiši does not refer to the subject
of te- (that not being referred to, hence left general, here rendered by
‘they’) but to the mention of sa) ïrtak in the previous sentence.
Headless relatives referring to objects appear more often to have been
formed for the purpose of clefting, where they serve as topics: In
*,+-. /+10 23'405 ) äšitmišim (TT VI 05 and U II 28,31) ‘What I have
heard is as follows’ the topic follows the comment; the non -clefted
sentence would have been **,+- /+6078 dtim. We also have the -dOk
form serving as topic, here with a (rhetorical) interrogative pronoun as
comment: ogrï tep tedökü) üz nägü ol (KP 59,5) ‘What is that which
you call a thief?’ Somewhat similar to the first sentence is män
kololadokum kamagdä ärklig yultuz ärmiš (l.5-9 in ms. TM 342630)
‘What I have discovered is that stars turn out to be the mightiest’. män
is added for reference to the verb’s subject as contrast to the other two
persons participating in the dispute, here in the nominative as against
the genitive of the first sentence in this paragraph. The comment is
itself a full sentence, the object of the verb kolola- (as the text which
an*,+-. /+ refers to is the object of äšit- in that sentence). All three
sentences are nominal, but topic and comment are linked by copulas in
the first, by ol in the second and by nothing in the runiform sentence,
where the comment is itself a sentence.
The sentence 9:<;=9>49@?=A/>CBEDF9GH9> ïš törü ärür, kim äsirkän;8I8B J
köKGLB:NMOFP9Q=9RTSUD ï bermäk (MaitH I 12r6) is difficult to analyse
though its meaning is clear: ‘What a laudable behaviour it is to give
away possessions unselfishly as charity!’. We have kim subordinating a
non-finite verb form below, in the next paragraph; infinite verb forms
are also found among the right-branching relative clauses described in
section 4.612. Both kim clauses appear to be headless relatives serving
as topics to the rest of the sentence, as does the headless relative
introduced by nä in the previous paragraph.
Analytical headless relative clauses can also serve clefting. When the
child bodhisattva Maitreya says that all the alphabets he has been
presented with are not suitable for the holy scriptures, his bewildered
father asks (MaitH XI 15r10): SVW>XUY:;=9ZP.?R G.[=A\S<BPLB A/GMR]U,^89HG9R]U,^89H
sanïK9_HYB&R >4M,J]MR`I MR G.MRbacH,9 d/UeU,^89HfMR HYBgHYB&>hU=^89H]I9: ïK9_HYB&RiA/[;B ‘If all
these different sorts of writings and alphabets are not to be considered
as alphabets, what, then, are the alphabets which do enter into the
category of alphabets?’ The structure of H,9 djUkU,^89HlMRmHYBnHYB>oU,^89H
sanïK9eHBRiA/[;YB is similar to ogrï tep tedöküK üz nägü ol just quoted, in
that both are nominal sentences with an interrogative pronoun as one
member and a headless relative clause as the other.
liked going out631 to the sea’. The reason for using the post -terminal
-mIš form may be that the prince is not interested in the journey itself
but only in its results. In this sentence, the subject of kir- is identical
with the subject of the main verb, tapla-; in the following three
instances, the two subjects differ. The subject of such subordinated
verbs is usually in the nominative: In bildi ö Y!x =¡= Y¢<£.¥¤<£¦4 §/¨ =©
(HTs VIII 1919) ‘He knew what earlier ªL§!«Y¬ did not know’ the
subordinate clause is a headless relative. Often the subordinate clause
refers not to one of the participants but to the action / event as a whole:
ol üdün kördi Xero<® ¬°¯«¢_¤±f¦X±=©/±²,£.«³§/«¢ ïp adïn ö 8§j±£²=«´¤« ¦ ïšïn
(U I 9, Magier) ‘Then king Herod saw that the Magi had returned and
gone by a differrent road’; bulu yï ak üstün altïn bulganmïš
tälgänmišin ukup ‘noting that the (world’s) four corners as well as
(its) top and bottom are in confusion and disorder’ ( AoF MaitH XV
1r11). Note that the -mIš form of the last two instances also bears a
possessive suffix to refer to the subject. In the following example,
however, we find the subject to be in the genitive: ® ²YE¬8¢ i,£¦Cµ8¢
utgurak bilti (U III 86,18) ‘he was sure that his elder brother had
arrived’. When the subject is in the genitive, the possessive suffix with
the verb form is, of course, normal. TT X 518-519 has been read as
tü[käl] bilgä t(ä)8°¤¶Yi¯«¢ -nïg ²=« nkramit k[ï]lu yorïmïšïn kördi ‘he
saw the perfectly wise divine Buddha carrying out can· kramita’. 632 In
the following object clauses the subjects of the subordinated verbs are
in the accusative case: t丹8º°»¼<½.¾Y¿<À¼¹ ï ymä käntü bägläri tä¸Y¹ºÀÁ¹º Â
taymïšlarïn körüp ... (Mait XVNachtr 4v29) ‘The goddesses, in turn,
saw that their husbands the gods had slipped, and ...’; à º ÄÆÅÇ,Á,Â/ÅÈ8º Ä¿!ºÉ&É&É
kurug ätözü¸Å=Ä¿5ºjÉ&ÉÉ ïdalagalï kïlïnmïšï¸ ïzï[n] körüp (HTs III 451) ‘we
three saw that you had made preparations for pointlessly giving up
your body, ...’. tä¸Y¹ºÀÁ¹º  could, in principle, have been interpreted as a
genitive, because /Ê Ë°ÌxÍ4ÎYÏ$ÌÐÒÑfÓÔÕÐÒÑÖÍi×$Ñ,Ø.ØÑ=ÙÛÚÍ K, but sizni can only be
the accusative.
In nä törlüg aš ašamïšïn ... nä•ä yaš yašamïšïn öyür ‘He remembers
what sorts of food he ate, ... how many years he lived, ...’ (MaitH XV
2r4) the subject of the object clauses is, again, here and in the next
example, the same as that of the main verb. nä törlüg aš and nä•ä yaš
are the verbs’ objects, nä and nä•ä serving as relative pronouns. nägü
631 kir- for this meaning is a calque on a Chinese expression, as shown by Hamilton in
his note.
632 canÜ ÝiÞàß ácâwãwß is a walking back and forth in meditation, whence the use of yorï-. The
editor thinks the stretch written NYX after burxan is an error for ïg, taking this to be an
accusative form; it must, however, be a genitive, the final nasal turning oral.
454 CHAPTER FOUR
kïlmïšï•nï sän adra sä•ä yora berdi• (QB 797) ‘You explained to me
what you did clearly and in detail’ is very similar, except that nägü
serves as relative pronoun by itself.
Subject reference can also be taken care of through possessive
suffixes appended to -dOk: bo kargantokïn, alkantokïn, kää räštökin
å/æYç<è.éYêè.æYëYì&çîí<ìïðñ,òóëYìEê8ìôè.ñ,õîöæ=õ/éYê ÷=ñùømå/úç÷=ûüö ûëûç<úYýbþ\ë,ñç<èxé ïn÷=û
bilmäzlär ‘They consider this cursing and quarreling of theirs to be just
scolding and play, like senseless people, and do not know it for what it
is’ (M I 9,16 -18); a letter (UigBrief A5) also has -dOk+ as object:
äsänin [ä]d[gün] ärdökin ešidip ‘hearing that he is well’. In the
sentence biltimi[z] ukdumuz özümüzün üzütümüzün üzä asra yarokda
... tünärigdä ärtöki[n] (M III nr.1 IV r9-13) ‘We have realised and
understood that our selves and souls are above and below, in light and
in dark’ the subject of the subordinated verb is in the accusative case;
above we already met object clauses with -mIš which had accusative
subjects.
In kältökümün kertgünzün[lär], siziä íñ,õ/ñÿð4ñëñ ä ì òLì ç
ärklänmäkiä w
ì
ò Lì
f
ç <
í
ì E
ï =
ò Y
é
ç
ï
ñ
to earth and attain Buddhadom?’; Note that nominal subjects can here
appear either in the nominative or in the genitive.
633 The parallel text in BQ E 20 has the stem form türk bodun instead of the accusa-
tive. Tekin 1968: 127 (and still Tekin 2003: 107) misunderstands the grammar here,
giving this +Xg form as a (the only!) instance of a variant -ïg of the genitive suffix.
634 This could also be an instance of haplology and not necessarily an error.
456 CHAPTER FOUR
parts are not dealt with below, as they are in fact instances of adjunct
phrases rather than adjunct clauses. A number of instances for
-mAk+tA are, e.g., quoted in Schulz 1978: 52-54 with, respectively,
temporal, instrumental or final meanings; none of these meanings are
explicit in any of the instances quoted, however, and some of them are
outright misinterpretations: The meaning of all of them can be summed
up as ‘locative of the infinitive’. Then take bulmayokka övkäläp kakïp
tagka ünüp kükrädi ätnädi (HTsToa 538-9) ‘He (the lion) got angry
and cross at not having found them, went up the mountain, roared and
made noises’: The suffix combination -mA-yOk+kA forms causal
clauses (as discussed below). The clause around bulmayokka could
here have a causal meaning; it could, however, also be the case that the
dative is governed by övkälä- (‘to be angry at something’) and that
bulmayok here serves as perfect participle referring to the action:
bulmayokka could, in other words, be not a causal clause but the
indirect object of a verb in the main clause. Similarly the form
-mAyOkkA in šilabadrï a{|} ï ïdmayokï~ a ayï kodï öpkäsi kälip ... (HtV
287)
V^ has
been
BnFstated
++to
give
.a#temporal
V+Emeaning
k ( as¡+in ‘He
¢£
V ¢+¤.¢u(i.e.
¥F¦P§©¨«king
ª¥+¢
him (i.e. Xuendzang) off’ but in fact we might as well unders tand
‘getting furious at master .’s not sending him off’ with the dative
governed by the verb phrase itself. The percentage of such unclear
instances is quite high; this is not a coincidence but is linked to the
origin of compounded adjunct clause suffixes, whose meaning did
originally consist of the sum of the meanings of their parts. Another
common uncertainty concerns the meaning actually to be assigned to
adjunct clauses: ¬ ¯®B°'± ï kälmäyökkä ävintäki kišilär istäyü … (HTsToa
82-84), e.g., can be translated either as ‘When that shepherd didn’t
arrive, his household looked for him …’ or ‘As that shepherd didn’t
arrive, his household looked for him …’; one has to have enough
unequivocal examples before one decides whether a certain clause
form has one or more than one central meaning. If one determines a
central meaning for a construction, then different ones can be
635 Note that the subjects of the -mIš forms here used as action nominals are not
referred to by possessive suffixes.
458 CHAPTER FOUR
Real vowel converbs, i.e. such that are formed from the verbal stem by
the speaker ad hoc at the time of utterance or writing (unlike
lexicalisations and the like, for which see section 3.286), can show
close juncture with one of a set of less lexical verbs or auxiliaries and
form with them complex predicates (section 3.25) or they can be quite
independent from the syntactic point of view.
sürä ünti (KP 64,7) describes the shepherd’s driving his he rd out of
the city gates; in this case converb and main action are simultaneous.
In the following sentence (in HTs VIII 69) the converb tuta is
separated from the main verb by adverbs but still describes the same
action as that referred to by the superordinated verb, ‘to write’: ½ ¾X³¼
º ¼º¿ ïlar … äšidmiš noml[a]rïn tuta öÀ+Á ¶ À+Á ½ ÁxÃ6Á Ä ²Å À ´Æ¶B¿,³ÇȲ ïltïlar
‘These three teachers pinned down the teachings which (they) heard
(from Xuanzang), writing (them) down one by one, and interpreted
SYNTAX 459
experience in life and is not expressed by the text itself. The clause
karmaputug sïp tsuy kïltïmïz ärsär (TT IV A67) ‘If we have broken the
precept and have sinned’, quoted in Gabain 1974: 120 as one of the
examples for the view that the event referred to by the -(X)p clause
precedes the other one, in fact proves exactly the opposite, as breaking
precepts does not precede sinning but is simultaneous with it. There is,
of course, logical sequencing in the observer’s mind, in the sense that a
breach of precepts is more directly observable, a label of sinning being
attached to the act by the cultural system. Similarly two parallel -(X)p
clauses can refer to an act of saying and to its content: agïà ïlarka ayïp
üküš altun bertürüp (HTs IV 603) can be translated either as ‘he talked
to the treasurers and had them give (him) a lot of guilders ...’ or ‘he
told the treasurers to give (him) a lot of guilders ...’; the latter may be
preferable if on remembers that ay- is ‘to say’ and not ‘to speak’. What
is clear is that the verb forms ayïp and bertürüp differ in denotation but
not in reference, referring to the same event. Some similar instances
with ay- are mentioned in OTWF 803 under ertür- and UW 287b under
ay- , §1d. There is, however, a statement which probably can be made
concerning anteriority and posteriority in this connection: In a chain of
-(X)p forms, a subsequent instance, one to the right of another -(X)p
form in Latin script, is unlikely to temporally precede the content of
the first-uttered or first-written -(X)p form. Rather than being a
grammatical rule, this is a consequence of the iconic principle: Where
grammar does not determine the order of elements, the speaker is likely
to let his enumeration follow in a manner mimicking reality: Instances
such as o[guz] bodun tokuz tatar birlä terilip kälti (BQ E34) ‘The
Oguz people got together (teril-) with the Tokuz Tatar and came
(against us)’, ol savïg äšidip tün udïsïkïm kälmädi, küntüz olorsukum
kälmädi (Tuñ 12) ‘Upon hearing (äšid-) that information I no longer
felt
áâ ã(äBålike
äæAç sleeping
èéáPêBë+êìdatí íî+night
ã.ïXáï or
ð1íòñsitting
ã6íxè.ïå down during the day’ or ol tašïg
à (U I 8,9-10, Christian) ‘They lifted
(kötür-) that stone and threw it into the well’ show the anteriority of
the event recounted in the -(X)p clause; further such examples are
quoted
ó çmôõå,ãkíin
î äm Schulz
ôõbå÷öê1978:
øbë'ù
áù 139.
ð"ùì»Instances
ã such as ïnà ïp ärdämin baturup
à ïnlïglar ara yorïyur ärtilär (TT VI 352-
3) ‘They used to live on this earth among all creatures, hiding their
virtues’ are, on the other hand, to be interpreted in such a way that
main and -(X)p verb refer to simultaneous öbíî#íë#events;
íî0áPõã6í æ3further
î'ï äBáêexamples
ìwù,ô»ð"ïî are
quoted in Schulz §162 (pp.139-140). à (U
III 48,11) can best be translated as ‘How will I manage if I leave you?’,
but ‘when I leave you’ is also a possibility. ‘Leaving’ cl early has to
SYNTAX 461
637 Quoted by Schulz 1978: 157. The sentence there quoted after this one is
misunderstood by him and contains no vowel converb.
638 In one case the suffix -mAkI& ' is also used with instrumental meaning (mentioned
in section 4.633 because other -mAkI()' clauses have temporal meaning). This may be
the meaning of some -mAk üzä phrases as well. We have not devoted a subsection of
section 4.63 to this content, as most clauses with such meaning are constructed around
contextual converbs.
462 CHAPTER FOUR
sunrise, when the tip of the sun appears, this ... creature will give up its
... bun’; cf. the similar use of ta*+%,-+/.!0%132 ‘at sunrise’ in MaitH XV
10r11.639 Note that both subjects are in the nominative case. In the
other extreme we have cases such as ävrilä ävrilmägü täg otgurak sav
(MaitH XIII 8r9), which appears to signify ‘resolute words which are
both interpretable and uninterpretable’; here the -A suffix would
merely signify that the suffix -gU is meant to apply for the positive
base as well.640
639 Turkish geç-e and kal-a in 4#5687:9#;=<58>?5 ‘ten past five’ and be6)59@;BA?CDEC ‘ten to
five’ are also petrified converbs having their own subject ( saat ‘watch, clock; hour’).
640 The normal converb vowel of -(X)l- verbs is /U/ and not /A/. This might therefore
actually be a scribe’s error (intending to write the next word and stopping after he
wrongly wrote an alef). The phenomenon for which this is taken to be an example is
rare at best.
641 The construction consisting of nä with -(X)p converb, sometimes followed by the
particle Ok, refers to events immediately preceding the main action; it is discussed in
section 4.633 above, among the temporal clauses. This is a distinct construction which
has no bearing on our view of the functions of -(X)p.
SYNTAX 463
642 The conjecture for the lacuna and the reading in general are supported by a similar
passage in BQ E 31; see footn. 59 above for the reading alpagut. Johanson 1992: 205
misquotes and misinterprets the sentence (tegin is fully visible; agït- is spelled with t1
and not d1 and does not signify “schlu g in die Flucht). The subject of ägir- must clearly
be plural (and not Köl Tegin by himself) as a single person cannot encircle anybody. A
sentence from ChrManMsFr ManFr v 9, which Johanson there quotes from Schulz
1978 as a further example, does not, in fact, show subject difference between -(X)p
clauses and their superordinated clause: The two converb clauses are there dependant
on a temporal clause ending in -sAr; it is normal for that to have a subject differing
from the main subject.
SYNTAX 465
643 If this were the past tense form it would have been spelled with d1, presumably
implying [ â ãNä kälti is spelled with t1 because the alveolar is there preceded by /l/; see
section 2.409.
644 The subject of both sakïnmatï and ter ärmiš is the Chinese. Gabain 1974: 124-5,
180 translates the sentence as “weil sie so viel Arbeit und Kraft nicht widme n wollten,
sagte er: ‘Ich will …’” and adds: Hier liegt keine zeitliche, sondern eine logische,
ursächliche Aufeinanderfolge vor und dazu ein Subjektwechsel.” Schulz 1978: 179
corrects this: “Gemeint ist: ‘weil sie (die Türken) aber nicht daran dachten, ih re
Arbeitskraft (den Chinesen) zur Verfügung zu stellen, sagte er …’”. This is an unlikely
way to understand the sentence, as Orkhon Turkic had the -åænçHè!é¯êìë#íë#ê construction
for forming causal clauses (see section 4.635) and there is no indication that -mAtI
could be used in this way. Nor do the instances for -mAtIn support Gabain’s
interpretation, as the subjects of this form are also either identical with that of the main
verb or linked to it in some metonymous way.
466 CHAPTER FOUR
LXI) ‘he was inadvertently caught in a snare’ or ‘as he did not notice
(tuy-) anything, he …’. In the following instance the converb form is
quite independent both by content and syntax: kïz yalgan tep
kertgünmätin teginkä ïnîïyðsñNòóðsñôwõ (KPFragmA 12-13) ‘The girl didn’t
believe (kertgün-) him, thinking it was a lie, and spoke to the prince as
follows:’; ol ämgäkig särü umadïn ögsüz bolurlar (Höllen 121-122)
‘Being unable to bear that suffering they lose consciousness.’ Schulz
1978: 174 lists these two (and a lot more) as instances of -mAtIn with
causal ‘function’. The sentences can, indeed, be translated with causal
meaning for the converb form, but they can also be translated the way I
have done it; it was the author’s choice not to make any such meaning
explicit and we cannot do it in his stead. There is, of course, an implicit
causal meaning here. In yanmïšta oglanlarïmnï bulmatïn yalaö÷ø
älvirgü täg bolur män (BT XIII 2,47) ‘If I do not find my children
when I come back, all alone I would get insane’ the meaning of the
-mAtIn form is outright conditional, since the sentence refers to a mere
possibility.
It does not happen very often that the subjects of -mAtIn forms differ
from the main subjects and when they do differ the two nominal
phrases are generally linked with the possessive suffix. We have, e.g.,
agïsï barïmï ... ämgänmätin ükün kirür (TT VI 101-102) ‘His wealth
comes in heaps without him ... working for it’. ‘wealth’ is, of course,
an entity which is very low on the agentivity scale;645 the growth of
wealth is a process in which the owner of that wealth is certainly the
central personality, whether he is an active agent in this process or
whether (as described in the sentence quoted) he is inactive. The
possessed is here the subject of the main clause. The same is true in the
following examples: ikiläyü tamuda tüšmätin alku ayïg kïlïnî!ù ïg
tïdïglarï barîïiú ïzïp öû!üýáþ (BT II 374-377) ‘they will not again fall
into hell and all their hindrances (consisting of) sins will (instead) all
melt away and die down’. In the next example the relational entity ( ät
ÿ
ü %û ïnû ‘fame and income’) does not b ear any possessive
suffix:
:û!ü ÿ ïgïg tilämätin ät kü bulunû ïnû
ÿtÿ
ý
kamagka ! "
û Xü sü
ÿ
(Suv 195,19-22) ‘Not striving
(tilä-mätin) for material matters or for profit, fame and income will
come (käl-) to them by themselves, and they will be honoured by all’.
Here, finally, is an example in which the possessed inalienable entity
(ün ‘voice’) is the subject of the negative subordinate clause: tilädilär
teginig yïglayu sïgtayu busanu, ünläri idi sönmädin (Suv 637,5-7)
645 Above we found that the same binome agï barïm happens also to be the object of
an -(X)p converb where the main verb has a different subject.
SYNTAX 467
‘Crying, wailing and sad they searched for the prince, their voices not
dying down even for a moment’. Numerous further Uygur examples for
-mAtIn are quoted in Schulz 1978: 171-177: In none of those instances
does the -mAtIn form have its own fully agentive and personalized
subject.
646 The editors Bang & Gabain and Clark propose b[abasïn] but baba ‘father’ is not
attested in Old Turkic; I take the nominative bala to be parallel to oglan.
647 This translation is tentative: ‘drum’ is kövrüg in Old Turkic (< *kävrüg, attested in
this shape in 14th century Ottoman) but ke’ürge / kö’ürge in Mongolian. If the
proposed rendering which, of course, accords with the meaning of the verb, is chosen,
then we would here have a variant very close to what we find in Mongolian.
SYNTAX 469
seas in the hole of a shell’. 648 A bit more is said below about the
correlative structures used in these sentences.
We have a projection participle in kïlmagu täg nä nägü iš (U III
54,15) ‚some action the like of which one isn‘t supposed to do’.
In yig aš bïšag aš ornï ikin ara sïkïlïp tämirlig olïgïn olïmïš osuglug
tokuz ay on kün ämgäk körürlär (MaitH XVNachtr 4r25) we have the
-mIš participle governed by the postposition osugulug ‘as, like, as if, in
the manner of’: ‘They get squeezed between the places of raw food and
digested food and suffer during nine (moon) months and ten days, as if
somebody649 had wrung them with an iron wrench’. osuglug governs
the aorist in isig öz alïm ïlarï birlä turušur osuglug turur (Suv 18,13)
‘It seems as if he is struggling with his angels of death’ or in ï
ulug mï
!#"$
%%
'&(*)+,*).-0/*1*2 (TT X 139) ‘3000
great thousand-worlds appeared as if shaking’. The semi -predicative
verbs tur- and közün- here share their predicative status with the
osuglug phrases.
Analogy can be expressed also by the particle kaltï or the conjunction
23- linked to clauses with verbs in the conditional form; e.g., with
both of these together: kaltï nä453687:9;<6(=>=;?=@BAC3DFEGH9I!J; ar burxan
kutïK9L692I ïglantoklarïnta tsuy irin405M7N6 ïlïn4;?9O ïn kšanti P*QRTSUWV.X ïlïp
nätäg arïtdïlar alkïnturtïlar ärsär, anPUY!QHVULR[Z\^]_[V^R[Za`cbUWVd]e]\2Pfhg
kïlïnP0Y!Qe ïm olarnï_a`!ZidQe ïzun alkïnzun (Suv 139,6-14) ‘Just as all the
great bodhisattvas got absolution from their sins when they were stri-
ving towards buddhadom and as they cleansed and cancelled them, e.g.,
so may also my sins get cleansed away and disappear as theirs’. That
sentence and the following both have Q\PUY!Q%VU and ymä in the main
clause: ïnP*Q kaltï kiši eligi bar ärsär ärdinilig otrugka tägsär kö_fYjkVl]\
mnWoFpqFprmstoFp u^m2vpxwWyw3n{z}|~q2wv!~%yw}y^[m.3pc2pn
3mnHu3q(pr~n}mnWHmn
burxanlïg ärdnilig otrugka kirip kutrulmak tüšlüg ärdini algalï uyur
(TT VB 90-95) ‘Just as, e.g., if somebody has hands and reaches the
Jewel Island, he can collect jewels to his heart’s desire, for instance, so
anybody who has faith can, in turn, get to Buddha’s Jewel Island und
obtain the jewel whose fruit is freedom’. Correlative sentences with
nätäg (otherwise dealt with in section 4.65) can also have comparative
648 The editor, Röhrborn, points out that the Chinese source refers to the unability to
scoop up the waters of all the oceans. ‘scooping up’ is küri-, but cf. kürp for küri-p in
BT III 226. The copyist must have mistaken this verb for kör- ‘to see’ and then taken
over üt ‘hole’ from the analogy following this one in the text, which refers to the
unability to see the domains of the seven planets through a hole.
649 The editors unnecessarily ‘emend’ olïmïš to olïnmïš, giving a passive translation as
“als ob sie mit einer eisernen Schnur (?) umwunden (?) wären”.
SYNTAX 471
convey the ‘means’ employed towards a goal: käntü özinií
katïglanmakïíäçë0ó3í ôõö÷øôù%úû3ö÷ü*ýþ ïr täg kïlïp alku bizni barÿ ý
yegädip biznidä ö ù%ú 3ù ý÷ û ïn bultaÿ ï boltï (U IV A 265-268)
‘Through his own exertion he made his heart as (hard as) vajra,
surpassed all of us and has become destined for buddhahood before us’.
Such instrumental content is otherwise expressed by -(X)p converbs.
In the following sentence, the -mIštA form, itself marked for reference
to its subject beside being accompanied by a pronoun, does not refer to
an event preceding the main event: biz änätkäkdin kälmišimizdä sintu
ögüz suvïn kä jk
lmk
lUnk
oXp)qlsrutn&o)v
wyx{z|Q}~nZ~
ï ärti (HTs VII 2045-6)
‘When we were on our way from India, while crossing the waters of the
Indus river, a load of holy books had gotten lost in the water’. The
‘normal’ taxis value of -mIštA cannot, then, be taken for granted; tense
appears here to have overruled it.
The locative of the aorist gives the meaning ‘while’, i.e. an overlap -
ping of the course of two events: ülgüsüz sansïz yüz mï ïnlïglar f t
wNk
o&
j
ugušï üküš tälim a ïg tarka ämgäkig täginürdä öyü sakïnu konši im
bodisatvïg birök atasar ö qt
}lt t
l#k
l
adadïn (BuddhGed 55-58) ‘If,
however, the multitude of countless 100,000s of myriads of living
beings remember the bodhisattva Guanyin and call upon him while
they experience (täginürdä) lots of bitter suffering, he will get rid of
the trouble’. With subject of the temporal clause distinct from that of
the main clause and expressed by a possessive suffix: män ïn ïp ... j
tä l9q}kw|+q
šaylïg mä )q0#k
l9q
D#kZ
qoctlt
wN k j~ 8tokQq}/q# ]q
ïn (U II
30,28-33) ‘While I was in this way ... experiencing divine sense
pleasures ..., I heard a voice saying the following:’. bo äšäk barïrta
kälirtä taš tägil bolsar (RH13 in SammlUigKontr 2) appears to signify
‘If this donkey gets lost while coming an going’. Further such instances
are quoted in Schulz 1978: 55-56.
Nominal forms of verbs referring to the action can also get governed by
postpositions, which mostly have temporal tasks. -mIštA bärü, e.g.,
signifies ‘since’, e.g. in yer tä ri törömištä bärü ‘since the time when
earth and sky came into existence’ (KP 5,8), -mIštA ken ‘after’, e.g.
kuvrag yïgïlmïšta ken (MaitH XX 1r10) ‘after the community
assembles’. The former phrase appears as -mIš+dIn bärü e.g. in HTs
VII 619. In Orkhon Turkic we have -dOkdA kesrä in this meaning:
yagru kondokda kesrä añïg bilig anta öyür ärmiš (KT S5) ‘After they
(i.e. the Turks) had settled near them they (the Chinese) were
straightway thinking bad thoughts’. Manichæan texts have -dOkdA
bärü and -dOkdA ken: sans(ï)z tümän yïl boltï sizintä adr(ï)ltokda bärü
opening such clauses: nä ünä birlä ök ... tiril- (Suv 16,13-16) ‘the
moment (I) got out, I ... came back to life’ or nä bo irü bälgülär bolu
birlä ök, ötrö … boltï (Suv 381,8) ‘Immediately after these signs
appeared, there happened …’. In the last instance, birlä ök is followed
by ötrö and it can also be followed by anta. Cf., finally, anagam kutïn
bulmïš kiši ... ö É
Ê3ËÌÎÍ#ÏÉ+ÐQÑ
ÒuÓ9ÐQÑÔ)Í#ÏÕÍ ÖÌ?×
ÐØÔ)ÏÙÍ ÖÌu×ÙÚ)ÑÐ{Ê#ÏÙÛÜ×
ÐÞÝ×Ô)Í`ÜÖÍ
ïn
bulup ... (MaitH Y 446) ‘The person who has attained the status of
×ÔßZÌ?ßà&ÑÔ
... gets born in the Divine Country of Appearances. The
moment he gets born he attains arhathood and ...’. I assume that birlä
does not, in this construction, govern the converb. Rather, the converb
itself is probably here in temporal use, as in the previous paragraph,
and birlä is an adverb here signifying ‘at once’.
Clauses with the -(X)p converb are used in a construction with similar
meaning, where the clause starts with nä ‘what’ : nä anï ulugï mahabalï
æ2ç9è é êcëZì#ëZíïî¸ë{ðòá ×iñ3ócÍ Óãô3âä
tegin körüp ïn î¸íÍ ó)Ó9õöå/Ñ î
÷)øùõÕëîSúgøì ì#øð.î9û üþý`ÿ ôñ3ó
(Suv 609,23-610,2) ‘When the oldest prince,
Ok: tokuz älig šlok
sözlädi. nä sözläyü tükädip ök ünüp yorïp bardï (BT I A1 11) ‘He
recited 49
. The moment he had finished reciting, he got up and
walked away’; nä anï körüp ök ät’özlärin ol sü
kamïltïlar (Suv 619,16-18) ‘The moment they saw that, they threw
themselves on those bones and … collapsed’. nä sometimes appears
also at the beginning of vowel converb + birlä clauses and temporal
-sAr clauses.
651 The word bu 0 13254 has been put into brackets as it does not appear in the KT but
only in the BQ inscription, which is a bit later; the passages refer to the same events.
ärür barur ärkli is clearly a set expression, which is not transparent offhand: Its
interpretation has to be guessed from the context and has been understood in different
ways by different scholars. The guess ‘living without worries’ is based on the
assumption that the meaning of the expression is roughly equivalent to that of bu6713284 .
SYNTAX 477
instance is the only one among the ones we have where the subject of
the construction is the same as that of the main verb; our interpretation
may therefore be wrong: Those living without worries (and hence
surprised by the Karlok transformation) may be the Türk; what
prevents this interpretation is the position of the words karlok bodun
before the ärkli clause. olor-, bat- and tašïk- are initial-transformative
verbs, denoting both the beginning of a state of affairs (‘sit down’, ‘set’
and go out’) and the continuing si tuation (‘sit’, ‘(of the moon) be
invisible’ and ‘be out’). In these constructions denoting concomitant
circumstances, it is not the initial but the intraterminal state which is
selected; this is also what we have in the ärür barur ärkli clause. In KT
N1/BQ E29 and Tuñ 8, the two Orkhon Turkic examples, the
subordinated activity precedes the event described in the main clause
and is interrupted by it; in the other two, however, the ŠU (Uygur
Steppe Empire inscription) examples, there is no such interruption.
ärkän, the Uygur counterpart of ärkli, is rather rare in Manichæan
sources. It can govern nominal clauses, e.g. in Manichæan yer tä9
:<;'=>
?
ärkän (Xw 133-4) ‘when land and sky (did) not exist’. Instances of
ärkän with nominal clauses appear also in QB 1493, 2055 and 4851.
The clause siz änätkäkdä ‘You are in India’ is governed in the
following sentence: siz @A!@!B ? @ ?C @@ :D? @AFE >HGIG: ï uz[a]tï sizni birlä
sözläšip … (HTs VII 1815-16) ‘While you were in India, this teacher
had a long conversation with you’. ärkän governs a locative also in
karanta ärkän yig oglïn tüšürtümüz (MaitH XX 14r27) ‘We aborted
their unripe child while (it) was in the belly (karïn)’. This sentence can
show us how the passage of ärkän from being a -gAn participle of the
copula är- to becoming a temporal conjunction could have taken place:
Interpreting är-gän as a participle we could have translated ‘We
aborted their unripe child which was in the belly’, which would have
been perfectly approporiate as well for the context.
Normally, however, ärkän governs the aorist (as ärkli does). In a
Manichæan text (Xw 159-160) we have alkanur ärkän kö9JK$JLMJN A ;
sakïnI ïmïznï tä9):; O @ :'J B$PB LQGC ïmïz ärsär ‘if, while praising God, we did
not keep our heart and thoughts directed towards him’. Here is one
Buddhist example: yana biz änätkäktin kälmišimizdä sindu ögüz suvïn
? @ I @ : @ :D? @ARE ;S:T=J
? A >LVU PW C!GX?G!KYC ï ärdi (HTs VII 2047) ‘Moreover
while we were crossing the Indus river on our way back home from
Tekin 1968: 270, 276 is probably wrong in taking the expression to be attributive in KT
but not in BQ and translating the passage as ‘became an enemy who began to behave
freely and feerlessly’ in the former case, as the texts are parallel and the m eaning of
bu Z7[3\5] ‘without worries’ has to be taken into consideration.
478 CHAPTER FOUR
India, one load of treatises was lost in the water’. In the fir st sentence
mentioned, the subjects of main and subordinate clause are the same,
while they differ in the second sentence. In ïn^ ïp igläyü birlä ök sav söz
kodup tutar kapar ärkän ölüp bardï (Suv 4,17-19) ‘Having just gotten
ill he lost the power of speech and, while catching up, he suddenly died
away’ ärkän governs a biverb, i.e. two near-synonymous verbs used
together for expressivity. Numerous additional Buddhist examples are
quoted in Schulz 1978: 94-101; here is one introduced by kaltï: kaltï
balïk kapagda olorur ärkän x_`ba
c ^ ïsï beš yüz ud sürä ünti (KP 64–65)
‘As he (the protagonist of the story) was, in that way, sitting by the city
gate, the king’s shepherd came out driving 500 heads of cattle’.
Here is an example for the sequence -gAlIr ärkän: bo törtägü ünüp
bargalïr ärkän ... bitig käldi (HTsToa 1472) ‘when these four were
about to leave for their journey, there came a letter ...’; another example
is quoted above at the end of section 3.285.
-mAz ärkän appears to be quite rare; e.g.: män nädfe ïlmaz ärkän, mün
yazoklar idišin … adïrtlïg bilmäz üddä ärür ärkän anam xatundïn
adrïlïp bir aga
`/hiajlk!a)mna)o e _cpjqa eprds h stuev m'_7w ïlïp … (HTsPar 19v26-
20r11) ‘While I wasn’t doing anything, while I was at a stage when I
did not clearly … know the vessel of sins, I was separated fr om my
lady mother, sorrow for a whole life was grafted in my heart and …’.
The rather common construction with -mAzkAn is not, by meaning,
the negative counterpart of aorist + ärkän, as it does not supply the
main clause with a temporal framework during which the main action
took place (as -mAz ärkän does). In most examples it appears together
with the particle takï, giving the meaning ‘not yet’: säd räm takï
bütmäzkän, etä bašladokta ok ... täd ridäm ordolar bälgülüg boltï (Mait
52r19-22) ‘When the monastery was not yet ready, when they just had
begun to construct it, ... there appeared divine palaces’. -mAzkAn may
have been formed with the particle kAn discussed in section 3.341
among the emphatic particles (note that it correlates with Ok in the
example just quoted). The problem with this is that -mAz would only be
made adverbial through the addition of kAn while the elements referred
to in section 3.341 as bases of kAn are adverbial in the first place. There
are further examples for takï V-mAzkAn e.g. in HTsToa 203-204 and
433-437, UigSünd 44-46 (thrice ‘as long as ... not’), U II 87,60 -62, Suv
4,3-8, 6,21-7,2 and 623,1-8, HTsPar 13r13-15. One example without
takï appears in IrqB XXI. Here is another one, with its subject distinct
from the subject of the main clause: kün täd
x<yQz aj t _p{ e _`}|hM| eHv~
yY^)y `c v |h$| x a8w e _ x _ r
d h s j_
onh$_ x ïg ašanzun (Suv 362,4-7) ‘Let him sit in
that same house before sunrise and eat dark-coloured food’.
SYNTAX 479
-7!7 has two different meanings, depending on whether the base verb
is of the type which needs to have passed a critical point to be
considered to have been realised, or whether it gets realised without a
critical point: In the first case it signifies ‘until’, in the second case ‘as
long as’, stressing the parallelism of temporal extension between main
and subordinate verb. Without a critical point we have, e.g.
) )
q S/b!D ï sözlämiš kärgäk (TT V A 73-74) ‘One should recite the
spell as long as one is able to’; katïg kertgün lM ïn o 5! ï
bolmaz (HTsPar 16r5) ‘As long as one is devoid of strong faith one
cannot get well’. Note that both main and subordinated clauses of the
instances quoted have generalised subjects. Other instances with
-T7/7 appear in HTsPar 16r2 and Suv 392,15.
With verbs which denote actions having a critical point, -!7
signifies ‘until’; e.g. !
p $ 'Q Q rim kaltï siznidin
burxan qutï a alkïš bulmagïn ‘I will not stand up, my lord, as long as
I do not receive from you the prophesy of buddhadom’ with the subject
of the subordinate clause the same as that of the main clause. S/.
sokup lalap bakïr eši '85 ïn
8
p !
ï
(Heilk I 172-174) ‘crush it finely, roast it in a copper pot till it gets
yellow, roll it in sesame oil …’ or
n
8S! ¡¢ £)u .¤
(RH13,14-15 in SammlUigKontr 2) ‘Till (I) give the donkey back, he
(i.e. the lender) may live off this land of mine’ has an implicit
subordinated subject differing from the main one, Q
!S!¥!¦)
barkïg uz tutgïl (U III 81,18) ‘Keep house well until I come’ an explicit
subordinated subject (in the nominative) differing from the main
subject. The meaning of yangïn (BT XIII 2,43) ‘till I come back’ is
very similar to this last instance.
-gAlI (for which see also section 3.286) can have either a temporal or a
final meaning (section 4.636); the final use of -gAlI forms shades off
into that of a supine (section 4.23). The -sAr form is another one having
a temporal meaning beside its conditional one, but it is easy to see how
these two meanings could have been related historically. Concerning
-gAlI no connection seems apparent between the different uses. In its
temporal meaning, the -gAlI form presents circumstances described in a
main clause as taking place since the ones referred to in a converbial
clause, the so-called abtemporal meaning: Türk xagan olorgalï ... taloy
ögüzkä tägmiš yok ärmiš ‘It is said that nobody reached ... the ocean
since a Turk xagan was enthroned’ is Orkhon Turkic (Tuñ 18). In
Uygur, temporal -gAlI is limited to Buddhist texts; Manichæan sources
480 CHAPTER FOUR
do not have it. Most instances, as the following two, have bol- in the
main clause: adrïlgalï yirilgäli ärü ärü [ür] ke§¨©ªi« ï (HTs VII 2064)
‘Bye and bye it has become a long time since (we) parted’; änüklägäli
yeti kün bolmïš (Suv 610,2-3) ‘It turns out that she (the tigress) bore her
cubs seven days ago’. More examples are discussed in Schulz 1978:
108-113. Schulz also quotes an instance from QB 5685, the only
example for temporal -gAlI he found in that text, where the main clause
has ¬ § - in one ms. but bol-, as in Uygur, in the other two mss..
Temporal -gAlI appears to have been replaced at least partially by
analytical converb equivalents such as -mIšda bärü and -dOkda bärü;
the fact that -gAlI forms are also found in final and supine use must
have helped this process.
652 As German wenn ‘if’ is historically the same as wann ‘when’ and English when.
SYNTAX 481
nä, this one as well gives the meaning of the main action following
immediately upon the subordinated one. The construction cannot get
misunderstood for the ones described in section 4.65 (where the
subordinate clause also starts with an interrogative-indefinite pronoun
and has a -sAr form), because there the reference of the interrogative-
indefinite pronoun is taken up by a demonstative in the main clause
(which doesn’t happen here). 654 nä körsär in HTs III 776 signifies
‘When he suddenly looked up, there was ...’.
In the second Christian text (r 15) in ChrManMsFr, the meaning
‘when’ is expressed by ø!ùúûü and a finite form: ø/ùúû
üfý<þÿ¢ÿ
[...] ögini ünin, [tär]kin yügürüp kälti [ö]gi ärü ‘When that calf heard
its mother’s voice, it immediately came running towards its mother’.
The next two instances, which appear in a different Christian text, show
ø/ùúû
ü
ÿÝø instead of ø!ùúûü and use it with the conditional: ø!ùúûü
ÿSø
bulsar sizlär … ma
ÿþÿßû'ûù ú
bø!ùúpû
ü
ÿSø
ïšlïmtïn
ünüp bardïlar ärsär ol yultuz ymä olarnï birlä barïr ärdi (U I 6,2-6)
‘When you find (him) … tell me (about it) … w hen those Magi left
Jerusalem that star was still proceeding together with them’. The
temporal use of ø!ùúû
ü¢ÿSø may be limited to the Christian sources, as
this element otherwise signifies ‘how’, ‘as’ or even ‘why’.
We do also find correlative pairs of pronouns with temporal meaning,
but these pronouns are in adverbal case forms or appear in phrases with
temporal meaning. The sentence ø!ùúùûû'û ù!¢ÿ"
ø!ú
ïü#
%$!
&$ ïyur
ärti (M I 7,12-13) ‘As he was running, so was he vomiting and feeling
disgust’ descri bes the action of running as taking place in parallel to the
other two. This also is a temporal relationship, as the vomiting and
disgust are not the result of the running; unless the translation should be
‘The more he ran the more he vomited and felt disgusted’ (which seems
unlikely). The link between the two sentences is secured by the
correlative pair ø!ùúù ...
ø!ú
. The following sentence also shows an
interrogative-indefinite pronoun, kayu üd+ün ‘in whatever time’, in the
temporal clause and a demonstrative pronoun in the main clause: kayu
üdün män beš törlüg ulug tülüg kördüm ärti, antada bärü ... olorgalï
küsäyür ärtim (MaitH XI 4v18) ‘When I had seen the 5 sorts of great
dreams, since then was I wishing to sit ...’. 655 Here, however, the two
pronouns are not in correlation; the subordinate clause is construed so
as to supply a static time frame, but the main clause takes up the time
654 Beside the fact that nä cannot be the object of ölsärlär because the verb is
intransitive and cannot be its subject because this latter is shown to be plural.
655 Another temporal clause starting with kayu üdün is quoted earlier in this section, in
the paragraph dealing with -mIšdA.
SYNTAX 483
656 Both spelled as one word, although tägi is, of course, a postposition governing the
dative form of these pronouns.
484 CHAPTER FOUR
burxan
ornï o"
}6
ï yarlïkadï (Mait 170r7)
#Uk¡ ¢¤£¦¥m§!¨u§©ª¨;«¤§
‘The god of gods the
^«k" ®U¯^°¯²±³´Uµ;¶¡·¸±¹p³º¶&»¯!¼
arhat ¬
because he was worthy of honour’ the clause subordinated by ½¾½¿ is
the nominal clause *maxakašyap arxant ayagka tägimlig ärür; its topic
is deleted because it appears in the main clause. Further examples
appear in HTs V 100-106 (twice), BT I A2 19-21 (all quoted elsewhere
in this book).ÃThe
À%ÁÂÁÃ ÆÇÈ
construction existed already in Orkhon Turkic, as in
½Ä;½Å ½ ½¾½¿ ‘since I had fortune and good luck’ (BQ E23)
and bägläri bodunï tüzsüz ü¾½¿ ‘because the lords and the people were
in disaccord’ (BQ E6). Laut 1986: 49 n.2 makes likely tha t tömgäsin
½¾½¿ (Mait 2r2) signifies ‘even though they are foolish’; here the
meaning would not be causal, then, but concessive. Note that
constructions with -sAr can also have concessive meaning beside the
more usual conditional one. Although tömgäsin is a noun form, what is
here governed by ½¾#½¿ is not this word by itself but the word as
predicated upon ‘they’, referred to by the possessive suffix. When the
topic of a clause subordinated by ½¾#½¿ is the 1st or 2nd person, this is
also expressed by a possessive suffix, as in yavlakïÉ ïn ü¾½¿ (KT)
‘because you are bad’. In tïnlïglarïg ütläyü ärigläyü alp kutgarguluk
½¾½¿ ‘because it is difficult to save living beings through advice and
admonishment’ (DKPAMPb 115) ½¾½¿%Ê governs a small clause (see
section 3.284) under -gUlXk.
In Orkhon Turkic the -dOk + possessive ÆË ÃÌÍÎÀË
suffix in ÆtheËÐ#Ë
accusative
̪ÑÇ
+
½¾½¿ constructionÇ isÇ causal, e.g. Ä ¿Ï½¾#½¿%Ê É É ïltokïn
yazïntokïn ü¾½¿VÒ Å ¿ ï ölti (BQ E16) ‘Their ruler died on account of È^Ë
their ignorance and because they erred and sinned towards us’; täÉ
SYNTAX 485
yarlïkadokïn üÓÔÕ (KT S9) ‘by the grace of God’. In Uygur we find e.g.
o[l sakïnÓ ïg] sakïntoklarï üÓ#ÔÕÖ6×ÖØÚÙ ïlïnÓÛ,ÜÝ ï üstälür (MaitH XX
Endblatt r10) ‘Their sins increase because they think that [thought]’. In
the negative form e.g. Ù%ÞÝTßÜà¤ÞÙáÕâÔÓÔÕ ‘because he didn’t see’
(Manichæan ms. Mz 372 r 6 in Wilkens 2000: 136); ] arïg turug üÓÔÕ
tamuka [...] barsar ymä ašayï artama[do]k üÓÔÕãßÖT×åäÝ^áRæçÝ{èÖÕãæá9Ý6Û,Ü
[tušu]p tamuluk ät’özintin ozar (Mait 220 r6) ‘Because he is pure he
will, even though he may go to hell, meet the Buddha Maitreya and, as
his data are not deteriorated, he will be saved from his hellbound body’.
Note that artamadok and yarlïkadokïn in the KT S9 example are both
accompanied by explicit subjects, but that the former has a possessive
suffix referring to the subject whereas artamadok doesn’t; this may be
a dialect characteristic or it may simply be due to the fact that éê6é × Ö is
not an individualized entity like täëÝ^á .
In Buddhist sources the post-terminal -ßìíÔÓÔÕ construction is more
common than -àåîïÙOÔÓÔÕ , e.g. kalmïš buyroklar ymä üküš aðçÕÛ,ÖÝTà"ÖNñ9ñ9ñ
ögüg kaë ïg tapïnmïš udunmïš üÓÔÕ%òæçÝ{èÖÕóÙ#ÞÝôÙá9Õõäá ö>÷%áÝyèÖÝ× õkÝ^áÕ
siöáÝTßgáøí¦ÔÓ#ÔÕ%òåÕùßõ!íkáàUá öÕùßæáäáØ?æáäuá9ßáøíúÔÓÔÕ%òLäùÕûÜäÔÙpÖíá9ÓTØ ÔOæ"ç%í ï
æ"õ^ÝTßáøíûÔÓ#ÔÕªññ9ñüÖÝ{è"ÖÕäÛ,ÖÝ¡æ"ùÛçÝ6ÛÖÝ (Mait 50 r1-8) ‘And the remaining
commanders become arhats because, through many existences, they
honoured and obeyed mother and father, adorned the effigy of Buddha
and swept the ground in chapels, listened to the teaching and wrote
down doctrinal texts and gave away clothes and shoes, food and drink
as alms.’ With possessive suffix referring to the subject, e.g. öëÜà"ßáíkáÕ
ÔÓÔÕ ‘since he had recovered’ (Yos 125).
The present participle -àkýúÓTì in a causal clause: bo montag asïg tusu
kïldaÓ ï üÓÔÕþæùNÕùßÿÜÝôàáÕUáò ÖÕ ïn ol šloklarïg tükäl bititti (BT I A2 20)
‘It is because this jewel of a text does this much good that he (the
emperor) had those Ø é ä é written out in full’. The aorist also belongs
to the group of participles supplying causes (and not to the group
expressing intention) although the state of affairs referred to with that
form did not yet actually have to have taken place at the time of the
utterance: arkïš barïr ÔÓÔÕ (UigBrief B) signifies ‘because a caravan is
going (there)’; i.e. the caravan is in planning or in preparation but has
not left as yet. Cf. Ù#ÞÝTßÜ# á/ÔÓÔÕþñ9ññ Öä/ÞëNßÜëá % á Ø Öà ïrtlayu körü umaz
(MaitH XV 8r26) ‘because he is blind he cannot distinguish objects and
appearances’.
In Manichæan sources there are a few instances where the
instrumental form added to -dOk with possessive suffix supplies
reasons for the main clause, e.g. azgurdokïn ‘because he led (our
senses) astray‘ (Xw 19) or üzüti ozakï özkä ämgäntökin, … kop yerdä
486 CHAPTER FOUR
657 See further examples in Schulz 1978: 39-47; a few of the -mIškA clauses which he
considers to be temporal can be interpreted as causal as well; since causal meaning is
undebated for most of the clauses having this suffix, this is the meaning to be under-
stood in all uncertain instances. See section 4.633 for the dative in temporal clauses.
SYNTAX 487
baš[ïn] közin agrïtur ‘When one does not offer sacrifices or vows to (a)
god, it hurts one’s head and eyes’ (TT VII 25r1). In this last example
the -yOk form could, of course, also be taken to be a headless relative
clause referring to the subject, giving ‘People who don’t offer ... get
pains in their head and eyes’. 658
-mAk+tIn supplies reasons for matters recounted in the main clause:
öQ'R'QTS7UV6S7R'Q-W%XZY[V8X\]X'S^Q`_ab%\]c\]cS7W ïn … ögdi yükün dfec'V8c$Whgcb ï kim
tetingäy (ET i 160,74-77) ‘In view of the fact that you have neither
appearance nor motion, who would dare to write a stotra (on you)?’.
bilgä bilig paramïtïg ögmäkimdin, birlä tugmïš buyan üzä bo tïnlïglar
bilgä bilig paramïtlïg käj2k l&mno-p$kq.r%os
t%o$r!kvutvw ïdïgda tärk tïnzunlar
(ET i 160,82-85) ‘As a result of my praise for the virtue of wisdom,
may the punx ya which arises therewith serve to get these creatures over
the ford of the virtue of wisdom quickly and once and for all to peace
on the other bank (i.e. y3z{8|}'y x a)’. With possessive s uffix referring to the
subject and a negative verb form: bo kamag ö~$z~$zy$'
0
'{6y ï~
tüzülmäkindin, ö~$z0]
]
' ïndïn, 2z"y708]'{.07%7 ïnkertü tözi
nä~zzf'~zf'{(] (Suv 383,22-384,1) ‘Because all these different
dharmas are parallel and not different, their so-being true root called
zy7 is not different at all’. The following verse has a nominal
ablative, two ablatives of -mAk and one of -dOk all expressing
‘reasons’:
{(.]
'y ïg yeg tözlügü~ !]$0 ïg külüg tetrüm
täri
«2¬®°
±'«7¡ ³!ï´µT
¯
±6 ²%¯] ¢ ïn
¶.±·2/´<¸0alp
¹'¶tuyguluk
´ º »½¼¿¾ÁÀÃo Ä''ÅÆ'£¥Ç¤¦5¦¡§'£ ¢$¨ ¡' ¢ ©ª<¡ ¡ ¨ £( ]§'¡
-65) ‘You are special because
you have a ... root ..., because you are ... deep, because feeling and
comprehending you is hard (and) ... because you see everything and
nothing.’
The causal meaning can be taken up by the instrumental anïn in the
main clause, as in the following example, where È'ÉÈÊ governs a
verbless clause with implicit topic: bo montag üküš ädgülärniËOÌÍZÎ ïgï
ÈÉÈÊ2ÏÐÍ'Ê ïn … samtso a ÉÍ'Ñ ï tavgaÉÓÒ ïlïnÉÔÕÍÖÒ%Í'Ñ8× ï (HTs VIII 46)
‘Because (it is) the gate of so many good things, therefore … the
master tripitؽÙ'ÚÙ translated (it) into Chinese’. ÛÜÝ'ÞÝÛàß$á<â%ã
Üäâ%Ü'åÐæ0çéè
æ5ç.ê(Ü'åìëíÚá"ãîâªïðÚ2çå(æ0Ýæ5ñä)ê.ñäâ%ÜòÝâ5ÝÚê.Ýä)Û:î'ã
â%Ùòôóâ0óÚêóä9Ý'ÞÝÛëõÙ'Û ïn anï
bilmäzlär (Suv 386-387) ‘If one asks why they do not know it, it is
because the … true root is unstatable and unteachable’, that is why they
don’t know it’. With causal ablative: tugsar ymä yalöóÚ2æ%Ù÷Úá*øá<â0Ü'å6Û3áö
yerintä, yeg ayaglïg bolmaktïn, anïn täöåáùæ0çéèúæ5çæ!áå(â0Ü'å (Suv 550,17-21)
658 This latter is the translation proposed for the sentence by Röhrborn 2000: 269.
488 CHAPTER FOUR
‘Even though they are born among humans and in people’s country,
they are considered to be gods because they are eminently venerable’.
The causal clause is introduced by kim in the Suv example in the last
paragraph as in the following sentence: û7üý(þ0 ÿ ý '
û <û
3ý(
ÿ ün
tägini û !ý"
# ï üÿ $û ïtmïš boltu%
'ý (M III nr.7 III r4)
‘Experience the true road with joy, as you have been called for (or
‘because of’) that’. In this last example the causal cause has no #ÿ ÿ ,
perhaps because there already is one ÿ ÿ within the clause. Thus the
whole subordinating task is borne by the conjunction kim in this case.
Similarly in a
&
'û %þ %)( ÿ * 'û %,+-++õ!þ
'û ï kutlug bo yer oron kim
bodïsavtlar bo koloda bo yer oronta ... ulag sapag nomug sakïntïlar
‘This time and this place are (so) blessed because the bodhisattvas have
thought about the law of causation at this time and place!’ (MaitH XV
6r5; there is another such sentence in 6v6). The author is here linking a
state (blessedness) with an event, but the direction of inference is not
clear: It may be that the time and place are blessed because of the
mental-theological achievement of the bodhisattvas, or the writer may
be giving his justification for stating that they are blessed. However,
consecutive clauses (section 4.637) are also introduced by kim; the
second clause may be consecutive and not causal if the writer is stating
that the bodhisattvas perceived the chain of cause and effect as a result
of the blessedness of that particular time and place.
The sentence quoted above from M III nr.7 III could also have been
translated with relative kim, as ‘Experience the true road with joy, you
who have been invited for that purpose’. The following sentence is
translated with a relative subordinate clause in UW 122a: ymä
yegädmäk utmak bolzun ma#
.
'/*û 0û
'ý ï petkä&
'1 ý 3245
06*7&
893!þ
'û
üzä, kim ymä ulug amranmakïn agïr küsüšün bitidim (M I 28,21) “ ...
der ich [dieses Buch] mit großer Verehrung und mit gewaltigem Eifer
geschrieben habe”. The clause could, however, be causal as well: ‘May
I, the worthless old scribe, prevail everlastingly through his holiness the
maxistak I., since I have written it with great love and serious effort’.
In Orkhon Turkic direct speech subordinated by te-yin ‘saying’ can in
fact introduce a causal clause: arkïš ïdmaz teyin sülädim (BQ E25) ‘I
campaigned (against them) because they were not sending (tribute)
caravans’ (lit. ‘saying “he is not sending caravans”’); another such
instance, also with an aorist, appears in BQ E39. Not far from this
meaning is a sentence in Tuñ 24: a
: ý
; ïtïp bir atlïg barmïš teyin ol
yolun yorïsar un=þ06ü *< ‘I asked him; since (teyin ‘saying’) a rider had
gone (there) it will be possible (for us) to go by that way, I said.’ Other
SYNTAX 489
the instigator of the carving is also the person making the preparations
(anut-). Main and -gAlI clause agent identity holds for 20 Manichæan
examples collected in Zieme 1969: 163-4 and more than 15 Buddhist
ones collected in Schulz 1978: 114-115. The function of -gAlI thus
corresponds to that of the English infinitive; I would not (thinking, e.g.,
of Latin dicere) for this reason call this form an ‘infinitive’, however,
as in Nevskaya 2002.
Rarely, final clauses with differing subject can appear as
complements, e.g. bizni sini algalï ïddï ‘He sent us to fetch you’; in
kavïšgalï ïd- in HTs IV 968-969 and tilägäli ïd- in Suv 636,10-12 the
subject of the -gAlI verb also differs from that of ïd-. Our interpretation
of Tuñ 27 depends on whether there as well -gAlI can have a subject
different from the main verb: The sentence can be read either as
ašangalï tüšürtümüz ‘We had (them) dismount to have (their) meal’ or
as sanagalï tüšürtümüz ‘We had (them) dismount to count (them)’. For
the first interpretation there would be two different agents (those who
tell others to dismount and the eaters), though in fact the agents
wouldn’t have been wholly distinct because the commanders would
also dismount and eat.
490 CHAPTER FOUR
659 Thus if we read ök. Another possiblity is to read ög and translate ‘give sense and
power’.
492 CHAPTER FOUR
bolmïš ärürlär (Mait 81v3, MaitH XXV 3r21) ‘These eight great fiery
hells have come into existence for carrying out punishment ... to
creatures with grave sins’.
tep ‘saying’ subordinates not only direct speech and content of
thought (as discussed in section 4.7) but also intentions, thus being a
conjunction for final clauses: maytri burxanka tušalïm tep bir maytri
suu bäzätdimiz ‘We have had the Maitreya prologue embellished in the
hope of meeting (or ‘so as to meet’) Buddha Maitreya’. With the tep
clause to the right of the main clause we have bo iki yegirmi törlüg
törösüz uC1DEFGDH#IKJMLNJ O'FGPH2J ORQFSITJMFNJ OTUJ VWL ïnlïglar tutarlar, adasïz tudasïz
ärälim tep (TT VI 260) ‘Those ignorant creatures observe these twelve
types of untraditional texts and writings hoping to keep away from
harm’ or üzäki yarok täXH2JMFGPHSY*DHF ïgïXDZE[\ ï inärlär, kamag budunka
ögläri täg kaXF!DH ï täg bolzun tep (TT VI 253) ‘Following the word of
the bright gods above they come down, so as to be for the whole people
like their mother and father’. Another instance with -zUn appears in
MaitH XX 14r25. Note that the TT VI 260 sentence is more of a stretch
of direct speech in that its verb is in the 1st person plural, reflecting the
subjects’ speech; the 3 rd person singular of TT VI 260 is a mark of
subordination as it would have given the wrong meaning if it had been
uttered by the subjects.
Very similar final clauses were already formed in Orkhon Turkic with
teyin; here is one among the examples: bodunug igidäyin teyin yirïgaru
oguz bodun tapa, ilgärü kïtañ tatbï bodun tapa, birigärü tavga]#L!D_^7D
ulug sü eki yegirmi sülädim … (KT E28, BQ E23) ‘In order to feed the
people I raided against the Oguz people in the north, the Kïtañ and
Tatbï peoples in the east and the Chinese in the south’. Orkhon Turkic
also already has an example of tep in this function: anï añïtayïn tep
sülädim ‘I campaigned in order to intimidate him’ (BQ E41). All the
Orkhon Turkic examples for this construction (see the index of Tekin
1968) have volitional verb forms in the subordinate verb; this appears
to be so also in Uygur. Orkhon Turkic teyin governing an aorist gives
causal meaning.
Final clauses can also be subordinated by kim. We find two
constructions here, depending on whether the content is indicative or
not. If the speaker does not express the wish that the result may take
place, this resultant situation is expressed with the conditional: adgüg
ayïgïg ymä kertgünmiš kärgäk, kim ken ökünmäsär (TT VI 199) ‘One
must also believe in good and bad, so that one is not sorry afterwards’;
ymä ögi ka•ï antag ögäk sav sözläyü umagay kim ol ärn(i)• kö•lin
SYNTAX 493
calamity has taken place that you are sending such a jewel-like, god-
like darling of yours to a place of death!’ the superordinate clause is a
rhetorical question.
In the following sentence the kim clause is also consecutive and has a
structure similar to the one just quoted: nä kärgäk boltï kim an
ämgänip bo yerkä kältiK ‘What necessity arose that you went to the
trouble to come to this place?’ (KP 47,3) . Thus also in bo tïnlïglar nä
ayïg kïlïn ïlmïšlar ärki, kim bo montag aT !*_nu ‘What sin are
these creatures said to have committed, that they were born into such
an existence and ...?’ (MaitH XX 1v20) and kimlär ärki bolar? nä
a[yï]g kïlïn ïltïlar ärki, kim montag yüräk yarïlïn ïg ämgäk tolgak
täginürlär? (MaitH XXV 2v21) ‘Who might these be? What sin might
they have comitted, that they experience such heart-rending suffering?’.
The main and subordinate clauses of these two Mait examples have
their subjects in common, so that one can see how they could have
evolved from relative clauses with kim.
I have come across one instance of what I take to be a synthetic
consecutive clause; its verb has the converb suffix -gAlI, which is
otherwise used with final or temporal meaning or as supine: In kimni
nK<K # S ¡ ¢NT£¤ ï berti (DKPAMPb 840) ‘For whom
have you given me as alms to cause me so much pain?’ I take mini
montag ämgät- to be not the aim but the result of the main action; this
is what the context seems to demand.
661 Ellipse of the main clause is possible, e.g. in sakïnu täginsär biz ‘If we presume to
think (about it)’: This comes to introduce a train of reasoning in HTs VII 231. A highly
common ellipse occurs with §¨©ª_©§¬«B¡®«°¯±¨² , literally ‘If one says “Why?”’: This is
used as when one says, in English ‘Why? Because ...’ as a rhetorical figure.
SYNTAX 495
662 The doubts expressed by the editors in footn.39 to the translation of the text are
groundless; there is no problem around this use of the conditional form.
496 CHAPTER FOUR
!#"$%'&(&) )+*-,)%./&0'1325476'89:74 -50), as
there are no clear-cut formal means of expression put to use for this
purpose, and as ‘although’, ‘even if’, ‘seeing that’, ‘inasmuch as’ etc.
ar ;<7=?>A@=B'CD=E>GF';H<JIK=BMLONQPN-RHS%B%@T;
U@VW%@X=YLYLYZ[K>;%V CV[\VM]^;_'=B[`T>;
UMKIaL;>
in the passage mentioned show, -sAr ymä is a fairly dependable sign of
concessive use in Uygur, while concessive clauses appear to have often
been introduced by b7cdHcefc in Muslim sources. What is common to all
these contents is that the subordinate clause spells out a presupposition.
-sAr forms can also introduce temporal clauses, as documented in
section 4.633. This is generally the case when the context allows only a
factive interpretation. In other cases, some of them quoted in that
section, both a temporal and a conditional interpretation of the clauses
is possible, and the difference seems to be blurred. Here is one such
sentence allowing both interpretations: turmïš törö ol: bo kundghjiYk%lb ïm
bägi yakïn bolmasar amranmak nizvanï olarnï artokrak örlätür ‘It is an
established rule: When / Whenever / If the husbands of these women
are away, the passion of lechery excites them a lot’ (U III 81,25).
Conditional clauses are sometimes introduced by apam ‘now’ 663
(apam in Qarakhanid), nkdHk%b ‘at some point in time’, kaltï ‘if, for
instance’ or (only Uygur) birök ‘however’. Sometimes we find the
elements kalï or k(a)ltï opening conditional clauses; kaltï appears to
signify ‘for one’ in kaltï birönk'iYoYg+bpoTq1isrtc%bMi?q r-dHknHlukvHkl5oxwHi?q ric%l#yk%bMik%l
b'cdHc%nczocr{q#hjw|l5o?q}b7d~+7c
c%l5cl5ic%lk%b'dHk%nk
ocr[q hwHo?qclq}bqic%lq#htec
h{q1oYi?q}b'ecHiclfhj+nk%'ekHiklunkdk%b'q}l5+n-dHknHlukvHkl5owHi?q rnkdkn ïyïlgudHk
ärsär, ötrö yeti ärdiniläri ymä özin ök yitlinürlär yokadurlar (Suv
395,12-17) ‘As long as, for one, the golden wheeled cakravartin kings
are on earth, their seven diamonds will not disappear; if, however, a
cakravartin king should, at any time, be about to go and die, then his
seven diamonds will also by themselves be annihilated’. The following
passages have more than one of these particles: apam birök bo
c'o HH~eq}b-o?q1o5clecbo1l5%k%ludk%b ï titmiš ïdalamïš bolur män (Suv
614,15) ‘Now if I should give up this body of mine, however, I would
then have given up and renounced everything’; Here is a conditional
sentence with kalï from DLT fol.548: kälsä kalï katïglïk, ärtär teyü
tirängil ‘If hardships should come, say it will pass and be steadfast’.
The second sentence of the Suv passage just quoted has the
construction (birök) … -r/dcl5c%l ‘if it gets to the point that ...
happens’ , cf. also birök oY~+nc'i/'q1isr~dHc-g+n5rjg%dkQcl5c%l (HTs VIII 156)
663 Not as the time adverb but corresponding to the English particle which is its
homophone; German nun. Nevertheless apam may come from ap+am, < *am ‘now’.
SYNTAX 497
‘In case, however, one should reach the level of knowing (it) and
understanding it fully …’. In Suv 533,15 the Skt. Petersburg ms. has
uksarlar where an (older) Berlin ms. writes uk-u u-j%Hp% ¡5 5¢% . Cf.
further: £'¤}
¥+¦§¢¨¦©¡5ª¤}«f¦©¡
©+«|¤[¦%¬'ªj%J% ¡5 ¤}¦+¤1¢Yuj©t¬7J+«u¬M+¦ ï
®
¥+ 5¥%H¯¦ ïlsun; ka%¬¯¦©¡©«|¤'¦¬j%H% ¡5% ° (Suv 362,14) ‘In case his
wish should not attain fulfillment, however, let him carry out the
mentioned procedures again; if, at some point, it turns out that his wish
®² ®²
does reach fulfillment …’; £§+±¤}¡5 ¢Y% ª³+¡
¢ ª(+¬7¢Yuj£'¤1¢s©%H
ärsärlär ... (Suv 204,2) ‘Insofar as the bodhisattvas and mahasttvas are
as knowledgable as this, ...’. 664
In the instances mentioned above, there was either -sAr added to
verbal stems or ärsär added to nominals or to the -´^µ form. -sAr is
aspectually unmarked; complex forms are used for specification. If the
event being referred to precedes the moment of speaking or the time of
the main event, ärsär is added to a -dI form: amrak oglum ölti ärsär
munu¶j©H·¤}¬¸tª¦¥+ 5ªu[¤}¬ (KP 67,7) ‘If my dear son has died, let me
not see the face of this (other) one’. The aorist followed by ärsär brings
an outlook for the future: yarlïg bolmaz ärsär bo yerdä yatayïn (KP
19,7) ‘If no command should be forthcoming, let me lie down in this
place’; yok ärsär instead of bolmaz ärsär would have concerned the
speaker’s present. With the following instance the speaker is applying
to a sort of oracle: yanturu öz ulušum[ka] barïp adasïz äsän tägir ärsär
män, bo xualïg psak bod[isatv]nï¶ ïdok elgintä turzun (HTs III 919) ‘If
I am to return to my own country and arrive there safe and sound, may
this wreath cling to the bodhisattva (statue)’s holy hand’. Numerous
examples for -mIš ärsär are mentioned in UW 403b (§19e of the entry),
e.g. abidarim tä¶+ ¤{£7+ A¹%¬fj% 5¢ ïkamïš ärmäsär (Abhi A 84a11) ‘If the
divine Buddha had not created abhidharma, ...’. The negative
counterpart of -mIš is -mAdOk: köz ärklig artamadok ärsär (Abhi B
64a12) ‘If the sense of sight has not gotten impaired, ...’.
When the condition is irreal, the main verb has to be followed by är-
ti; the subordinate clause normally shows -dI ärsär (or other
appropriate persons of the preterite form):665 birök a¶%% f¡|¤ ·H¢ f¦% t%¦
®
boltu¶H·¢% ¡5% º¡|¤ ·H¢ ¬¤t»¢ tu¼% ±¤ (U III 69,25) ‘If it had turned out
664 Another example for -gU½ A ärsär is attested in HTs III 713. The Suv uses the
construction with är- in 376,4 and 14, with äšid- in 86,13 and 99,19, with sözlä- in
537,5, with bol- in 376,8, with tug- in 374,17, 19 and 22, with ornangalï u- in 462,6,
with yadïl- in 91,21 and with yolat- in 87,22. Cf. also UW 407a.
665 In Turkish -sA idi or Rab ¾ ¿ À Á ÂOÃ -sA ärdi (documented by Schinkewitsch 1926: 93 §
148) irreal conditions are instead expressed by the conditional of the lexical verb and
the preterite of the copula..
498 CHAPTER FOUR
that he needed you (pl.), he would have fetched you (but in fact it was
me whom he snatched away)’. A sentence with -mAdI ärsär in the
subordinate clause and -mAdIlAr ärti in the main clause appears in
MaitH I 1v7-12. A further irreal sentence, with bulmadïlar ärsär and
bolgay ärti, is quoted in UW 405a. In the following the main clause
contains a 3rd person imperative, because the speaker would have liked
the proposition to come true: äliti kälmiš azokï alkanmadï ärsär,
yersuvda uzun yašadï ärsär üküš ögrünÄÅÇÆÈ%ÉÅÊ|Ë ÌÍtËÎMË}Ï5ÐÈÑÒ+ÏGÌÅ+Í ärti
(M III nr.5 r9-12) ‘If the provisions which he brought along had not
been used up, if he had lived a long life on earth, he would have en-
joyed a lot of happiness together with you (but unfortunately he died)’.
The sentence can be irreal even if the subordinate verb is not preterite,
if the then operative condition is still considered to be valid at the time
of speaking: kutlug bodis(a)vtlar ärmäsär bo yerkä näÉÇÓÈÔtÆÈÔtÈ5ÕpÈÏ5Ó?Ë
(KP 45,3-5) ‘If he weren’t a blessed bodhisattva he would not have
been able to reach this place at all (but in fact he did)’. Three further
instances with the same sets of verb phrases are quoted in UW 404-5
(§23a of the entry). This holds already, with the forms kazganmasar, in
Orkhon Turkic Tuñ 59: Elteriš xagan kazganmasar, yok ärti ärsär, bän
özüm bilgä Tuñokok kazganmasar bän yok ärtim ärsär, Kapgan xagan
ÖM×+ØÙÚtÛ}ØÜÝ+Þ'ß+àájâØ|Û}à'ãäåÜÝ+ÞátæäåÜÝ+Þ'ß%àájâHæä¼Ù%ÛOç|Û%áâ|æäåÛÞÛ%ájÝ%Ùä%Ø5ãYäèÛ
ärti ‘If Elteriš kagan were not victorious, if he had perished, if I myself,
the wise Tuñokok, were not victorious, if I had perished, there would
not have remained any nation or tribe or person in the place of the Türk
Sir nation’. The unrealised future in the past appears in the main
clauses of all such sentences in Orkhon Turkic and Uygur.
If the subject of a -sAr form is evident from the context, it may not be
overtly expressed at all, e.g. the second sentence in esän tükäl täggäy
é Û ê|ë#Û}à7èÛ ìíÙîuájßåÙ×+àÜß+ØGïî%à-Ùßã ïn bulsar, meni titmäð (KP 40,7) ‘You
will arrive safe and sound. If (you) thereupon some day attain
Buddhadom, do not forsake me’. Uygur -sAr forms with no explicit
ãYßHñÛ1ããä
subject can also have a general agent, ‘one’ in English: ð ri
yerintäki yïl sanïn sanasar ... tört mïð yïl ärtdi ‘if one reckons by the
years of the Tusò ó}ôõ(öH÷%øù%ôEúTûJ÷ü¨ôEýMþfÿ%÷( ûþHõú
ý'õ
' þ' õ þ tiši
kišini ïlïn sanagu ärsär bisaminni bašlap sanagu ol (TT VII nr.12,3)
‘If one is to count the years of a female person (i.e. for astrological
øú'
7 ÷ þ
÷+ù'þ
øA ô(öH÷+øùô û G ôTõúXôó1ù'ÿüXúG÷!# " õó%$ úGõ
'
õù'E& õ()+x* ýMþúGþ-ó% õù
important difference between generic reference, which applies to
‘anyone’, and general reference, which applies to ‘everyone’ , as
described in the next section; the first remains unexpressed while
generalised reference is expressed by indefinite pronouns. In Blatt 14-
SYNTAX 499
18 and 27-28 we have both gapping and käm ‘whoever’: kaltï yürü,
tašag666 alsar, kïzïlsïg suv yünsär ol tašïg özi üzä tutsar kopka utgay …
tašï,.-
/10 ï yašïl bolsar käm özintä tutsar agulug kurt ko,/325416(417
89/:/;42
‘If one takes the white stone, for instance, and there emerges a reddish
liquid and one keeps that stone on oneself one will prevail at
everything. … If the liq uid of the stone should be green, whoever keeps
it with himself, poisonous worms and beetles will not be able to
endanger him’. In the second sentence a conditional clause and the
correlative type of sentence described in the next section appear in
parallel, making a fitting link between this and that one.
If the speaker wants the addressee to make the content of the protasis
come true, he can – as in many other languages – put it into the
imperative mood, thereby making a merely implicit condition: bir äki
atlïg yavlakïn ü<=!>@?47A4CBD!6/1>/1;FEG989=1,IHJ38K6ML
,1NOH41>(4PL<QL?
RSEGK;.T<QL
HUJ38K;T<!L(-VT1> (ŠU E5) ‘Because of the wickedness of one or two knights
you perished, o my people; submit again and (if you do that) you will
neither die nor perish’. The standard conditional f ormulation would
have been *yana L<QL?W-VT17YX-VT1>[ZWR\EGK;.T<QLWHUJ38K;T<!L-VT1> The meaning of the
following sentence, with >(T(<3T but without the conditional form, is close
to being concessive: bo mamika kïznï,T(8] E32QLH;.TB1T?W-WL 2^;T1,=Q-
=2^DG
R
>T<3T5H;T_?E17V89GKT`?E!7?!L;T1,L 2L ol (TT X 545) ‘Now the body of this girl
Mamika is as weak and transient as her shape and appearance is
beautiful.’ This is a way of saying that her body is transient although
she is beautiful. 89E1;aT1-WL
>b=1<=!> in Mait 2r2 (89E;aT!-WLc=1<=!> in parallel
MaitH Y 11a6) is by the context shown to signify ‘even though they
are foolish’ and not ‘because they are foolish’. If this is not an error on
the part of the writer, it shows that matters which are ‘not a hindrance’
could also be represented by the causal postposition.
666 Accusative suffix with vowel lowered by the /g/; see section 2.402.
500 CHAPTER FOUR
The construction has two distinct uses: In what appears to have been
the primary use, the pronoun serves as a variable argument, the content
of the main clause being understood to apply for any value of that
variable. It would be wrong to speak of a relative pronoun in such
cases, as that would obscure the indefinite – generalising meaning of
this element. The resulting content is equivalent to generalising
relativisation. In the second use, the variable has only one value,
referred to by the demonstrative of the main clause. The adverbial use
of indefinite – demonstrative correlations, e.g. when the subordinate
clause has d(efe here meaning ‘in the measure that’, are again a
different matter, dealt with last in this section.
A simple example for the first use mentioned above is Qarakhanid
tavar kimnig667 üklisä bäglik ag ar kärgäyür ‘Whoever acquires much
wealth, being a bäg befits him’. The variable is the possessor of the
subject (tavar ‘wealth’) in the subordinate clause but the dative object
in the main clause; kimnig and ag!hi are correlated. The main
proposition is said to hold for whatever person’s fortune grows ( ükli-).
The content can also be translated into a conditional construction: ‘If
anybody acquires much wealth, it befits him to become a bäg’.
Similarly in talkan kimnig bolsa ag1h1ikj1e1lme1nolh(pKh1i (DLT fol. 221) ‘He
who has roasted barley mixes it with syrup’. Here the main an
subordinate clauses share the subject in English though not in
Qarakhanid: In the sentence as it stands, ag1h1i refers back not to kimnig
but to talkan. Uygur: kimnig`pKhmhi ï yogun bolsar kanagï yegqsr (TT VII
42,3) ‘If somebody has thick veins, it is easy to let his blood’ and
l1qm t(e_jqiVu!l lvwi
p'xy!d(fjh1ie1iznVe1ik{rl!q
|Wqp9vWmYq
dOf ïn kiši tetir (TT V B 112-
113) ‘Whoever possesses faith, however, that person is straightway
called a true person’. An instance of a correlation kimnig~}
}}Oh1d ïg
appears in TT X 273-274. kimkä is attested in a correlative sentence in
U III 76,16. Interestingly, the majority of the instances with oblique
indefinite pronouns in the conditional clause of this construction are
construed around kim ‘who’ and not any other interrogative -indefinite
pronoun, no doubt because of the saliency of humans above other
entities.
In the examples quoted, the indefinite pronoun was in the genitive,
the locative or the dative case. Normally, it is in the nominative case
and (perhaps for that reason) often appears at the beginning of the
subordinate clause; this is not surprising as this relative element of the
subordinate clause is normally also the subject of the main clause: kim
667 Dissimilated from z w , the genitive form, as happens in the DLT.
SYNTAX 501
(9
9![1QU1z
1[\A %QW
1%^
3Q!
A!
ïg kïlïn (U IV C 119-
121) ‘Whoever is a murderer, he will himself suffer the result of that
wU!(1(
sin’. birök ‘however’ is used also here, e.g. kim birök tä
M 5¡K£¢¤(3_K ¥¦1§¨s©
k1zV[(© «ª3¥ ¬1:
33K3!
(U III
29,16) ‘However, let anybody who knows even as little as one line of
the divine Buddha’s teaching come and tell it to the king’. In kim mintä
ken okïsar mini atayu yarlïkasunlar (M I 29,16-30,18) ‘May whoever
recites it after me graciously evoke my name’ the plural form of the
main verb reflects the assumption that the text will be recited by more
than one person; there is no resumptive pronoun here, this plural suffix
in fact taking care of anaphoric reference. Cf. taloy ögüzkä kirür sizlär.
kim ölüm adaka korksar yorï lar (KP 32,3), which signifies ‘You are
entering the ocean. If anyone (of you) is afraid of death or danger, you
may leave’; or: ‘Any one (of you) who is afraid of death or danger may
leave’.
w 1V1V 1K
With kayu we have e.g. kayu korkïn ïz yï ï urkaru
bizni uduzup eltdi (U IV C 83) ‘Whichever was the fearless direction,
in that direction did you always lead us’; the word kayu in this example
is not adnominal but the predicate of a downgraded nominal sentence
w
whose topic is korkïn ïz yï .
In the examples quoted, the variable consisted of the interrogative-
indefinite pronoun by itself; it may also be a noun phrase containing
such a pronoun (nägü sakïn and nä busuš in the following two
V1
examples): nägü sakïn ïnsar sän, bütmäz (TT VII 28,4) ‘Whatever
plans you are considering, they will not materialize’;. In amtï
9 ¤(11o(IQ
!
V1 zV1®
®®
kö ïn ï ïrak tarkargïl (TT X 136)
‘Get rid of any sorrow or worry there is in your heart ...’ we have the
verb är- here expressing existence. Note that there was no resumptive
pronoun in the main clause in these examples.668 With an adnominal
indefinite pronoun and a correlate in the main clause, e.g. kayu kiši ög
ka kö lin bertsär, ol tïnlïg tamuluk bolur (KP 9,5) ‘Any person who
breaks the heart of his parents, that creature becomes a candidate for
hell’. When the speaker assumes that more than one entity answers the
description he gives, he can take up reference to them in the plural in
his subsequent text (as already in two previously quoted examples for
!§ªwAQQ
1¯3 Q11c1V1[
§.('!Q9ª°M
this construction): ï kämi
äsän tükäl kälürzünlär (KP 23,4-7) ‘Whatever guides, pilots or seamen
there are, let them come, then, and bring the prince back safe and
668 Therefore, ol in the U IV example just quoted need not be resumptive with refer-
ence to the murderer but could also qualify the phrase ayïg kïlïn± .
502 CHAPTER FOUR
669 Note that this part of the subordinate clause appears before the correlative
pronoun, as in the example from U III just quoted; nä has, I think, been brought
forward to stress the verbs ämgät- tolgat- etc..
SYNTAX 503
3r7) ‘I will venture to act in whatever way you order (me) to’. The
content and form of a sentence in U III 47,11 is very similar to the last
one. nätäg clauses can also be comparative (cf. the end of section
4.632). In section 4.634 we deal with the correlative pairs näHIJ&ILK:I$M1N
O@O@OPQ H P J P KI$M1N and kayu üdün ... ol üdün; these form temporal sentences
which are also rather unlike relativization.
670 sakïn ø +ïn is in the instrumental case; that there should be the possessive before the
case suffix does not seem too likely.
671 The Qarakhanid sentence elig aydï kim sen nägü ol atïù (QB 583) ‘The king said
“Who are you, what is your name?”’ was, by the editor, wrongly tak en to be another
case of subordination by kim.
SYNTAX 507
1995, to which the reader is herewith referred. We cannot deal with the
matter in any detailed or systematic manner here (especially because
our corpus is much vaster), but have selected a few topics.
Coordination is not necessarily explicit at any syntactic level: From
adjectives to paragraphs, everything can by linked by merely being
listed, the wider semantic and syntactic context serving as
508 CHAPTER FOUR
concatenator: täB rilär täB ri katunlarï ‘gods and godesses’ ; ogulta kïzta
amrak ‘dearer than son and daughter’; äki ogluma yavgu šad at bertim
‘I gave my two sons the titles ‘yavgu’ and ‘shad’ (respectively)’; kulum
küB üm bodun ‘the nation (consisting of) my male and female slaves’
(ŠU S9). Implicit coordination can well be contrastive: oglum savï
CDEGFIHJKL/JM#NC4LOEGF&PQESR)T4UC
(KP 63,3) is ‘till news (from) my son turn out
to be good (or) bad’; bilip bilmätin (Xw 150) ‘knowingly (or)
unknowingly’ is a disjunction. In [ka]tïg tïgrak bürtgäli yumšak iki
ämigläri (TT X 445) ‘her two breasts, firm (but) soft to touch’ the
adjectives katïg and tïgrak are in obvious semantic opposition to
yumšak. Sequences are sometimes conventional, as tünün künün ‘by
night and day’, or binomes such as yer suv ‘the material world’ or kam
kadašïm ‘my family’ (with inflectional elements repeated). Biverbs
such as sävä amrayu ‘loving’ are just as common. Finite verbs follow
each other in Xw 3-4, sharing subject and circumstantials: Xormuzta
täB ri beš täB ri birlä ... yäkkä süB üšgäli kälti enti ‘The god Zerwan
descended (enti) and came (kälti) together with the Fivefold God to
fight the Devil’. Whole clauses sharing only the subject can also be
coordinated asyndetically, as shown in the following example: nom
UJWVYXZ[HJP\L
nomlayu ... ät’öz ürlüksüzin ukïtu ïn ïkar ‘preaching the
doctrine, explaining the body’s transience, he says the following’. In
the following passage two sentences are linked by sharing subjects and
M&R)]^HGX_PU`RabKU U`RNJP3CP8a\CP-cH]C
the suffix +lAr referring to them: ï kämi
kälzün, teginig äsän tükäl kälürzünlär (KP 23,4-7) ‘Whatever guides,
pilots and seamen there are, let them come, then, and bring the prince
back safe and sound’.
Apposition is also a kind of coordination, e.g. among four noun
P,ROa_RdT&ceMF`a\C]fROghM`F`aF`g_Ri]jRdT
phrases in okïyur män sirigini kut täB
MJTVYb&PD4JU_k U`RlE mnho#ppq9r/o#stvuYuIwxy&z|{4}~
ïg] kïlmïš išimin bütürdä
goddess of happiness, who fulfills what I hoped for and brings to
completion what I do’. The attested accusativ es as well as the fact that
the -
_ forms are postposed and not preposed shows that these latter
are headless relative clauses apposed in coordination. Pronouns and
proper names can appear in apposition: bo nišan män Mï(4#&0d
‘This mark is mine – Mï _\5j ¢¡£¥¤¦¤§¨+© y[arlï]kanªv«ª ï kö¬®
¯°,±i²5± ³W´µ¶|±d°,±d¶ ²
ª ïnlï[g]ka kšanti berü yarlïkazun (DKPAMPb 1271)
‘May he have pity and forgive me poor creature’. Note that group
inflection applies also here, so that the case suffixes are, in these two
examples, appended only to the appositions.
Often, however, coordination is explicit. Between noun phrases we
have inflectional coordination with +lI (cf. section 3.123), coordination
SYNTAX 509
by repeated particles as in kün ymä tün ymä ‘both by day and by night’
or bägläri ymä bodunï ymä ‘both their aristocracy and their common
people’, or by repeated conjunctions, such as ap ... ap ‘both ... and’ or
azu ... azu ‘either ... or’ (section 3.33); by postposing ulatï, as in koy
lagzïn ulatï tïnlïglarïg ‘living creatures (such as) sheep, pigs etc.’
(section 4.21). In relatively late texts collective numerals are added
after enumeration: ·¸4¹ ï buka äsän ikägü appears, e.g., in
º!»,¼¼¢½d¾f¿/À`ÁfÂ&ÃÄ Åƺ»0Ç4ÇÈdÉ4ÈÊË»,Ã!Ì¥ÇÍÏÎ8¿/À`Ã!¿/Ð5Ñ¿)ÃÀ|Ò)¾fÌÓ
ï and Buka Äsän’;
the text documents their collective purchase of land. Sa26 documents
the sale by a father and by his two sons of their son and younger
brother into slavery; the sellers are mentioned (6-7) as atasï kutlug
tämür, akasï är tugmïš akasï toktamïš üÔÕvÖG× ‘his father Kutlug Tämür,
his elder brother Är Tugmïš and his elder brother Toktamïš’.
In Uygur and Qarakhanid, takï can mean ‘and’ or ‘moreover’; as such
it mostly joins larger units such as sentences. Conjunctions such as takï
and yana precede the first sentence constituent. When sentences are
coordinated with ymä, that particle is often placed after the first
constituent (e.g. ol ymä nirvan mäØ isi ‘that nirvana bliss, in turn, ...’),
although it can also precede the whole sentences. In the following
instance, the stretch starting with takï ymä sums up, as it were, all that
precedes (various farmers, hunters etc., then): ÙÚÙÛ_ÜjÝ5Þdßà5ÞláGà/ÙÛ âÙvãÛ ï
ää irär yüä ää irär kentir ää irär, böz batatu kars tokïyur, takï ymä adrok
uzlar käntü käntü uz išin išläyür (KP 2,5) ‘Many people make thread of
wool or hemp,672 weave cloth of linen or wool and, (in general,) various
professionals carry out each his special profession’.
Another way to coordinate parallel syntactic structures is to have
them share elements: yuyka ärkli topolgalï uâvåæçÛ\ÚjèOé+êSëSèdß4â\áçìçÛ7í`à5è á
î
æ7áç4à5èïåâvåvæ ‘that which is thin is easy to pierce, they say, that which is
slim easy to break’ (Tuñ). Shared elements are often bound mor-
phemes, e.g. the possessive suffix in this sentence: tamuda ... tugmïš
takï ymä ... beš yol iâ`èdßÝYçðdð)ðSÝYåváÚ ïšïn öyür sakïnur ‘So he remembers
that he was born in hell, ... that he was, moreover, born in the five
walks’ (Mai tH XV 1v23-25). In the following instance the finite verbs
share the plural marker: yer suvlar suv üzäki kemi osuglug altï törlüg
täpräyür kamšayurlar (MaitH XX 1r2) ‘The worlds shake and rock in
six ways, like a ship on water’. Sequences of clauses with t he -(X)p
converb can sometimes be considered to be coordinated from the func-
672 Among the three objects of ä ñ\ò óô\ó , the first is a loan from Indo-Iranian related to
Skt. cakra and denoting a ‘spinning wheel’ while the others denote types of thread.
510 CHAPTER FOUR
tional point of view, when -(X)p has no content of itself beside its join-
ing function, but in fact merely represents the choice to subordinate.
dý
dý ü iü þGúû ú ïdalaguluk käzigi kälsär
... (TT VB 107) ‘If it happens that one has to give up these three one by
one, ...’. Note that the subordinate clause is the second one in the U II
example, but the first one in the Mait example.
RTSUVW+RBX ï ... täYZ[]\ U ZD^ RV_V`a ïn äšidmiš tïYBb RBa ïš ögrätigi üzä bo šlok
nom köYBcBb[ VW+d$X*d b W [ ‘He saw that the divine Buddha was walking back
and forth in meditation. Immediately, through his experience in a
previous existence of ... having heard and having listened to the
teaching of the divine Buddha, the following doctrinal verse came to
his mind:’ Anaphoric demonstratives are not barred, then. käntü can
also get used anaphorically: yana ol ok yäkl d Ze[f XTdX b d Zhgji%k d l c ZFb d Z
tïltag bolurlar käntülärni üzä elänürlär (TT VI 267 f.) ‘Again those
same demons prevail; (they, i.e. the ignorants) are the cause and (they,
i.e. the demons) rule over them (i.e. over the ignorants)’.
Anaphoricity is achieved also by the repetition of nominals: xan
Y
bertim, xanï ïn kodup i f[ XW [Y
(Tuñ 2-3) ‘I gave you a king (but) you
abandoned your king and submitted (to the Chinese);’ türk bodun
WmRBn k R f X*RLXTo ZPcZ d Z W [qppp W cZ X \ `lUV ^ RBV
ïn bolmayïn tavga adrïltï (Tuñ f X*R
1-2) ‘The Turk nation was dependent on China; being without a king,
the Turk nation separated from China’.
Cohesion can be additionally stressed by anaphoric and cataphoric
elements, by taking up lexemes from the co-text and by other means:
RBV fïp (a pro-verb), anta ötrö (e.g. in Mait 26A r4) or anta ken
R
‘thereupon’, starting sentences, link them to the previous ones. ïn is a
cataphoric, RV f R
an anaphoric pro-adverb or pro-adjective: ïn ïn Rf srPf RX f
sakïnur, for instance, signifies ‘He thinks the following thoughts:’. Also
for the purpose of cohesion, a segment like anï ešidip ‘hearing that’ can
be placed before mention of the subject of ešid- (i.e. cataphorically).
The following is a rhetorically motivated lexical topic chain, coherence
being strengthened through the particle ymä: ürüg amïl n i r v a n ta ö i Y
Y Y
mä ülüg m ä i bultukmaz. ol ymä nirvan mä isi n o m ta ö i bulgalï Y Y
bolmaz. nomug ymä b u r x a n l a r da ö Y [4ppp V`a b RlqR f
ï bultukmaz.
Y Y
mäni ymä burxan kutï a ... kut kolmïšïm bar ‘There exists no eternal
V [ Z /n t u R vxwyFzH{|}~{
mN%
b l i s s other than peaceful n . , in turn,
cannot be attained other than by r e l i g i o n . Now there are no
preachers of religion other than the B u d d h a s . And I have been
praying for buddhahood’. burxan kutï is not in initial position in the last
sentence because ‘I’ is the general topic (note that t he genitive mäni
gets separated from its head) and because the chain is thereby closed.
The Orkhon inscriptions have a special method of cohesion, whereby
B qH mBN
preceding sentences are summed up in -(X)p clauses: ïš &q*mBm
‘This is how they appear to have governed the
country. Governing the country, they ...’; N¡¢£m¤O¥B¦B*¥BB§*
yagï bolmïš. yagï bolup ... ‘With such words they opposed the Chinese
emperor. Even though opposing him, ...’. Another form of summary
512 CHAPTER FOUR
Pragmatics deals with speech acts and with the use to which language is
put in interpersonal relationships. Normally one would not expect to
find much information on pragmatics in sources from a dead language
spoken in a society about which we know so little, especially when the
vast majority of these sources is translated from other languages and
deals with religious matters. The fact is, however, that the corpus
includes many (religiously motivated) narrative texts containing
numerous instances of direct speech. These show such oral
characteristics as vocatives and interjections, a freer word order,
situation-bound deictics, repetition, rhetorical questions and so forth; cf.
körü lär körü
lïg körtlä
lïg säviglig ärür ‘See, see
... in how many ways he is pretty, in how many ways lovely!’. Another
characteristic of speech is the use of endearment in +kIñA, which can
draw the noun phrases of whole passages into its tenor; it not only
refers to entities ‘loved’ or ‘pitied’ by the speaker but also often signals
affection for the addressee and his/her world: See section 3.111 above
and OTWF section 2.1. When referring to the speaker himself, +kIñA
expresses humility as a means of politeness. Private letters which are, in
our corpus, mostly addressed to family members, are very interesting in
this respect.
with him”, since tol is a 2nd person and not a 3rd person imperative.675
Cf. further süprük ‘Go as sweepings without anybody caring about
them’ (DLT fol.382): This appears to be the imperative of an otherwise
unattested -(X)k- derivate from süpür- ‘to sweep’. 676
675 tol- can have either the receptacle to be filled as subject, or the substance to fill the
receptacle; this is unlike English, where ‘to fill’ is used both of the filling agent and of
ßàXáÛâãåäåäåã æXçéèkê^ëwèSß ìÝæXí¹á\îïÑæwáí¹ìbæFßñðkìbæ0è±äåìbß áoò2ó ô õ ö÷Ýø ù ú¤ú±ûbüý ûÝüXþ¹ûÿsúûbýÑþkÿû
üpý
Øýwû
grave’. toploka is presumably a simplification of toplok+ka, from toplok ‘cracks in the
ground’ (DLT fol. 235).
676 This formation is dealt with in OTWF section 7.24; there is no justification for
Dankoff & Kelly’s changing the form to ‘süprül’.
518 CHAPTER FIVE
also testifies to this: s(ä)n mini, karï ata< nï tesär sän – yol yer kördü< –
kälip körüšüp barsar sän n(ä)gü bolur ‘As for me, your old father –
you’ve seen roads and places – how would it be if you came for a while
and we saw each other?’ The two conditional forms in this stretch do
not express conditions either; one is a topicaliser and the second serves
the rhetorical purpose of the sentence. Now consider anï< =?>/@ ïn
tïA/B >DCFEG ï kišilär barGD> ïnHJILKNMPOQKNMRTSVUXWYU[Z]\_^/`ba$`/K)c?`DdeK ïnlïgnïfgc?I/h ïn
ijDkFl/mNlnonqp2rXskFlilVrut[v wJmNjr$xyi4jDkFlzt?{DwJmjVtXj/r}|/~r_J~jDwJlJkTmj_FlVrusNp
(DKPAMPb 271) ‘People who listen to his words all say the following:
“Why do you believe the words of this wretched creature? Whatever he
says, it’s all lies!” Here the motive for uttering the rhetorical question is
supplied straightway. Interrogative pronouns also serve exclamatory
function: In KP 5,1, the (sad) Good Prince says (among other things):
näglük tugdum män ‘Why was I born, I?’. Here the postverbal pronoun
is redundant in content and grammar but takes up reference to the topic;
hence its post-predicative position. It is as if he had asked: ‘Why did I,
of all people, have to see this?’ In ~iJ~jDJkFmJk7~4m ïnlïg közünmäz
mü? (TT X 254) ‘Doesn’t he look so very splendid?’, finally, the
expected answer is ‘Yes, he does.’
In Old Turkic, the means used for expressing epistemic mood do not
coincide with those used for volitional mood; we therefore separate the
two topics and have dealt with epistemic mood in section 3.27; these
two are, we think, semantically as well as pragmatically quite distinct
matters. Volitional mood is usually conveyed with the forms of the
volitional paradigm (q.v. in section 3.231) if the speaker’s wishes,
orders or entreaties are to be transmitted to the addressee or to a third
party. Other topics to be discussed in this section are the expressions of
hope and exhortation, the asking of permission, the expression of
readiness to carry out an action and the like.
The volitional content most commonly expressed is that of the
speaker telling the addressee(s) to carry out (or, if the form is negative,
not to carry out) some action; in the singular, this is normally expressed
by the singular 2nd person imperative form consisting of the simple
stem. The form is often accompanied by the synharmonous particle gIl,
as described in section 3.344. In many Uygur texts (though not yet in
Orkhon Turkic), the ‘plural’ form in -(X)Æ is used only for polite
address to the singular, -(X)Æ Ç ÈÊÉ being used for the plural (polite or
familiar): E.g., Mait XV 12v11f. has tur-uË ÌFÍNÎ/Ï[Ð_ÎÑ -ïÒDÌ&ÓXÎ/Ô ïn-ïÒJÌ ïdala-Ò
‘stand up ... hurry up ... consider ... abandon’, said in an address to a
king; the same passage has odunuÒ/ÕÎÐ ‘wake up’ said to a multitude.
Occasionally a future form is used for expressing a firm injunction:
ötrö kaÒ ï xan yarlïgkamadï, “barmagay sïn” tep tedi (KP 19,3) ‘Then
his father the king did not permit (it); he said “You will not go!”.
The content of the following utterances is linked to a hope: közin
körgäy ärki biz xanïmïznïÒ×Ö/ÎÑ ïnïÒØÑÙÚÕÛJÜÝÍßÞÕÜàÑáÔ$âÑ!ÞÒàáÚÛVÑ&ÍÎÔ
ãÎ
ävirmišin (HTs VII 1241) ‘We might see with our eyes that the lord of
our lord right here turns the wheel of dharma every day’; bulgay ärki
biz yeg adrok buyanïg (Suv 609,11) ‘We will maybe (or ‘hopefullly’)
attain excellent punä ya’. The sentences themselves need not, however,
actually have expressed that hope; they could be statements about the
future, meant to serve as encouragement.677 This is what Gabain might
have been thinking of when she said that -gAy can be used as optative.
However, some of the instances of -gAy + ärki listed in UW 436b (§ III
677 In Judaism (where the coming of the Messiah is traditionally always expected in
the nearest future) the use of such expressions is (also) quite normal.
PRAGMATICS AND MODALITY 521
wretched creatures tell us the means to remove their heresies and sins
so that they may understand and know’. Further examples of this can be
found in TT X 19 and 179 (both again yarlïkazun) or U III 83,18. In the
sentence bodisatv tegin ka ï kanta bo yarlïg ešidip “yarlïg bolzun,
tïdmazun barayïn” tep ötünti (KP 19,1) ‘When the bodhisattva prince
heard this order from the king his father, he addressed (him) saying
‘May there be an order (that) he may not hold (me) back (but) let me
go!’. yarlïg bolzun may have been broadly equivalent to ‘Please!’.
The following passage shows two different uses of the 3rd person
imperative with no person reference; they are linked by implicit
causality: nä
!
"# %$&'()")*,+ -(."/10324%45&67
ymä tägmäzün (MaitH XX 13r9-13) ‘One should by no means kill wild
animals and eat their meat (so that) one does not get to suffer as we do’.
Only the first sentence is prescriptive on the part of the speaker; the
second one should more strictly correspond to the wishes of the
addressee than of the speaker, who is already in hell. The following
passage is similar, but here the first sentence expresses impersonal
mood (section 5.2): 4)
8948):;=<
> <8
ïn kolosïn <88):98"?&'8;@%*
nïzvanïlar kü <A+0B&C8(4)"3*>?%(.D8E 8F
ïlmazun (M III nr.6, 12,3-52)
‘It is necessary to have one’s meals thus, at the right times, lest the
vices get strong and harm the body’.
In pronominal questions coupled with mood, it is the addressee’s wish
that is solicited; e.g. kayu balïkta tugayïn? ‘In which town should I be
(re)born?’. amrak ögüküm kö G !
"H"?<I+9B
J
"K&'"L
(KP 9,7)
signifies ‘How should I break my darling’s heart?’; this is what the
speaker expects the addressees’ demands to boil down to.678 2nd person
imperatives do not appear in questions.
Particles such as gIl M.N OQPSR=NUTWVYX ZM.[ \^]!_a`BM.Nb3c Mbde f%g
lend special
urgency to imperatives; see section 3.344 for examples. gIl is very
common but is rarely used with negated forms. In HTs III 673, the
future form bol-gay ‘It will become’ is used as a modal particle: “sän
hikjlnm o.p qYr s/tnu tvxw^tyzF{n|~})/Bz's/})FuBtYw^
amtï bolgay az[an] üzä agtïnïp sudur [agï]lïkïg nomlagïl” tep tedi
679 now get up to the pulpit and
678 The context is that the prince would like the king to give everything in the state
treasury away as alms, and the treasurers have been expressing their worries about the
imminent bankruptcy of the state. This is thus not a rhetorical question.
679 The English particle please also, after all, comes from a modal phrase like ‘if it
please you’, still used without truncation in French s’il te / vous plait. German bitte
presumably elliptically stands for ‘(ich) bitte (dich / Sie)’. Concerning the use of bol- cf.
Turkish olur expressing consent.
PRAGMATICS AND MODALITY 523
680 This is the way the unreal condition is construed; see also section 4.64.
524 CHAPTER FIVE
681 I follow Atalay’s rea ding. Dankoff & Kelly read ‘yamu’. ;=<?> @ACB D EGFFHJIKJLMNHPORQQSMTH
the word ye which is a particle meaning ‘yes’; the U V W and the X YZ are the
interrogative” (i.e. mü). This must be equal to Turkish emi, which has initial stress as
befits a word whose second part is mI, and exactly the same meaning as defined by
[]\?^ _`Ca b c
e ~ ye is also the first part of ävät ~ äwät ~ yämät ‘yes’, with an emphatic
particle discussed in section 3.341.
526 CHAPTER FIVE
washed away and cleaned its dirt and filth’ (Suv 142,1). While -mIš
kärgäk may be describing what states one should strive to have attained
the content of -gU kärgäk may be describing what one should strive for:
bo iki törlüg ädgül[ärkä tükäl]lig bolgu kärgäk (Suv 23,7) ‘One should
be equipped with these two sorts of virtues’. The QB instead has käräk
with the -sA form and subject pronoun in the nominative case
dfegihj,kPl e.mnoqprhs#tejuno+vwlNxzy{{|~}{S
682 Zieme 1969 n.267 still thought that this was a variant of the 2nd person imperative
particle gIl and may actually be right concerning some very late texts: The sentence
kälip körüšüp bargul in a letter which has several Middle Turkic characteristics (Brieffr
C9) is certainly very directly addressed to one person and can be translated as ‘Come,
let us see each other (and then) go (back again)’.
PRAGMATICS AND MODALITY 527
wish concerning an event which could have taken place at his moment
of speaking but hasn’t, possibly regretting that it hasn’t done so but not
considering a realisation in the future as relevant. We first deal with the
first possibility and come back to irreal wishes below: In the following
example from a letter on the Silk Road the -gU form receives a
possessive suffix to refer to the subject and the nominal subject appears
in the genitive: kutsïnïªu«««¬®J¯°²±5³´®µ¶³N«¬®¸·&´¹P³»º¼·&´½¿¾µ ´¹P³·&«i±´À³ Áý
¬ÄÆŸÀ.Ç®RÈ+±É·´½©¬®S¹P³N·««««i¬Âq·&ʽ+ËÇqÀ#Ç®8±ÌÀ²Êµ± ïda algu ol (HamTouHou
34,11) ‘K. should have given ... (for scissors); he didn’t give it (and) I
paid it: I gave 85 (pieces of) woolen cloth. ... This much woolen cloth
should be taken from K.’. Further examples appear in confessions; in
the Manichæan Xw with -mAk and -sXk: ½ÍËÇÎÄÇ?ÏÉÐ ï)t tutdokumuzta
¬´®°°ËÇ#¯Á ïn, üËÑÀ.¾ª°Ò°½º0°Ë´Ò¯Ó³½Ô¬+³®ÕÀ#Ç·Ç#¯Ö¾Á#°½!µ°À.´µ¶³qµÊµ ·ÇÀ
683 The editor wrote “Nach üzmägümüz scheint k(ä)rgäk zu fehlen”; in view of the
variation in the modal phrases and bergüsi ärti in the letter quoted above, any such
addition seems unnecessary.
528 CHAPTER FIVE
ämdi maçè ‘I had told you my (fickle and inconstant) nature; you
should not now have fastened your heart to me’.
wise Buddha, god of gods, graciously was in good health in this world,
...’; a further such example occurs in HTs VII 1057. Governing a place
name in the dative, without a lexical verb or a predicative adjective,
yarlïka- signifies ‘to come to a certain place’ (the way buyur- can be
used in Turkish): #$&%$')( yïn lagkika yarlïkadï (HTs VII 936) ‘On the
10th month he came to Luo-yang’.
The humility counterpart of yarlïka- ‘to say’ is ötün-, literally ‘to
pray, submit a petition’; its humility counterpart in the sense of ‘doing
graciously’ is tägin- ‘to take the liberty to do’. ötün- and tägin- are used
for marking speech and action respectively, of the individual who has
an inferior status. The auxiliary ötün- appears e.g. in kältöküm bo tep
ötünti ‘He said “These are (the circumstances of) my coming’ (KP
61,2). In [subu]di ... ötünti ayïtdï [ät]özlüg savïg kö* + ,.-/
0 ïlmamakïg
132547698;:&<=?>A@B C D EF3G9HHHC&IKJJIKL)FNMPORQTS
OUC&MB FVFWDXIZY&MY
-creation of bodily
matters in the heart’ both verbs are finite. tägin- appears e.g. in bo ämig
iki kata okïyu tägintim (M I 29,9-14, Manichæan) ‘I endeavoured to
recite this healant twice’ or ötüg bitig kïlïp … ïdu tägintimiz (HTsPek
89r11) ‘we have humbly prepared a petition and sent it’ . In kamag
bursa[ kuvragdïn iki toyïn ötünü täginür män (Mait fr. quoted in the n.
to TT I 160) ‘I venture to invite two monks from all communities’ we
find the two politeness verbs combined. Occasionally, the construction
is different: [b]o kutlug künüg küsüšlüg täginür ärtimiz (M III nr.15,
34,13) ‘We have been humbly wishing for this blessed day’. See
section 3.25 for similar constructions with the vowel converb.
The sentence tükäl Tämür tü-\T]_^a` ïzïndïm koyn yïl onun`cb]ed fg
hijKk j
\lbmgb ` dbn ïkta oApZq&rKst u v wyx{z?|}~w
XTR
.zWX
c&
have written down all of it; the 25th of the 10th month, the year of the
sheep, in the city of Sh.’: tü is a loan from Chinese, reflecting the old
pronunciation of Chinese nu ‘slave’; therefore tü-kyä, with the so-called
diminutive suffix, is approximately ‘lowly slave’. This is one example
for self-depreciation found in Uygur texts; further examples of +k(I)yA
in the service of modesty appear in OTWF 50.
Politeness is not, of course, necessarily a matter of social (or other)
positioning. Another indication of deference is the use of the 3rd person
for the addressee; e.g. in the following address to a brother, where it
appears together with the verb yarlïka- and vocative particle (y)a: äšidü
yarlïkazun e -a, kim … ‘Please hear, dear brother, that …’ (Suv
608,23). Similarly, among the same brothers: azkya ö ¡ ïyu
turzunlar; män una basa yetdim (Suv 615,14) ‘Please walk on a bit; I
will have reached you in a moment!’. See TT X 19 and 179 and U III
36,9 for further examples. The sentence täU"¢R£¥¤¦K¤K¦£7§K¤R"£m¢R¨© ïn
kutun turkaru adasazan tudasazan ärmäki bolzun ärti (BT V 516-8)
‘Our majesty, I wish he were to attain a long life, that he were to live
full of blessing and that he were continuously free from trouble’ again
shows the 3rd person, beside, of course, the title täU"¢l £ and the irreal
530 CHAPTER FIVE
sadness?’. The plural polite counterpart of this form would have been
kälti¯ izlär. Similarly in the imperative, käli¯ can be used politely for the
singular, käli¯ lär for the plural. In anvamïg yutuzluk al(ï)nï¯ ‘Take
yourself A. as wife!’ (M III 14,4 1) the addressee is also, of course,
singular. In rare cases honorific plurality even applies to nouns, as
kutlug bodis(a)vt+lar ärmäsär bo yerkä nä¯Æ¸ºl¹²Zºl¹_ºÀº°¸± (KP 45,3-5)
‘If he weren’t a blessed bodhisattva he would not have been able to
reach this place at all’, said of a single person.
CHAPTER SIX
685 N. Sims Williams has, in different publications, pointed out that this corresponds to
binomes in Bactrian, Khotanese and Mongolian which signify ‘irrigated land, landed
property’. Mongolic O PRQPTSVUWXU appears (e.g. in the Secret History and in Ordos) to have
the same sacral meaning yer suv has in Turkic.
534 CHAPTER SIX
e and the like. Zieme 1991 is the most authoritative and exhaustive
treatment of this topic.
External influences on the lexicon came mainly from Chinese,
Sogdian, Sanskrit686 and Tokharian. Qarakhanid borrowed from Arabic,
Persian and other Iranian languages. The vast majority of lexemes
copied from other languages is nominal. Both the Qarakhanids and the
Uygurs made great efforts to translate foreign ideas, in many respects
well surpassing copy coinings in modern Turkic languages.
Loan translation is a domain which would benefit much from further
exploration; it occurs, e.g., when we find kïl-ïnY ‘deed’ translating Skt.
karma because that comes from the root krZ ‘to do’. There are numerous
such[ cases, e.g. the verb süz-ül- ‘to have faith’ which is calqued on Skt.
pra- sad ‘to settle down’ > ‘ to become limpid (because this happens
after impurities settle in a liquid)’ > ‘to attain peace, faith’. ädgün
barmïš (Warnke 195) is copied from Skt. sugata consisting of su ‘well’
and the perfect participle gata from the root gam ‘to go’. Uygur has the
adverbial instrumental ädgü+n and the perfect participle bar-mïš+lar
‘the ones who walked’. We also have many cases where a calque takes
place in a particular context but has not been adopted by the language
as a whole. Cf. the passive verb stem form yorï-l- from intransitive
yorï-, which was created to translate the Skt. medio-passive caryate in
\/]R^_
`acb d e/fhgjiklmnpoqk2rtsk/uwv
vr
car is a synonym of yorï-. Maue 1989
deals specifically with loan translations from Sanskrit in Sanskrit-
xzyp{|}~DR{|
}
where Sanskrit has a preverb. In some
cases which he mentions, such as
t = eyin ulalur ‘is joined’
or R¡£¢ ¤¥&¦ = ö§
¨ bodolmak ‘lack of passion’ the connection seems
clear. In others which he mentions, such as birgärü yïgïl- ‘to gather
(intr.)’, örö kötör- ‘to lift up’ or örö tur- ‘to stand up’ the fact of
copying is not so evident. The author says that tur- is also used for the
meaning ‘to stand up’, but it is a fact that Old Uygur tur- was a highly
polysemic verb which was in need for specification. The question of
what is copied and what is not, what is copied ad hoc and what has
become a naturalised collocation in most cases needs more elaborate
and detailed study before one can make such statements. The same
holds for Röhrborn 1983, an important paper on this matter, and for
Laut 2003, the most recent contribution in this domain: In the great
majority of cases, the expressions Laut mentions (divided into “Lehn-
schöpfungen”, “Lehnbedeutungen”, “Lehnbildungen / Lehnübersetz-
686 The numerous Sanskrit loans normally reflect the Buddhist culture of the Uygurs
and were borrowed through Tokharian, Sogdian or even Chinese but Zieme 2003 has
pointed out a number of loans in different semantic domains.
NOTES ON THE LEXICON 535
This bibligraphy includes all work I have found which describes and discusses the Old
Turkic language. Publications of Old Turkic texts, writings which deal with the content
of these texts or papers only trying to further their interpretation without making
statements on the language as such have not been mentioned here, although the indirect
contribution of these latter to our understanding of the language is, of course, highly
valuable. Nor has general work on Turkic languages and their reconstructed prehistory
been included, unless specific passages relevant to our topics are quoted in the present
book. Adam et al., 2000 is an excellent bibliography covering all research relating to
the early Turks though not quite complete concerning linguistic matters. Old Turkic
sources are referred to in the same way as in the OTWF, taking over the abbreviations
of the UW whenever available. The fact that the publication of the UW fascicles has
been disconnected in recent years has meant that I have had to resort to practically full
references when quoting out of relatively recent text editions; any future editions of the
present work should use standardized quotation for all texts, assuming that publication
of the UW continues or that a list for text naming is agreed upon in some other way.
TITLE ABBREVIATIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
— 1986: Constraints on poetic licence in the Qutadgu Bilig: The converb and aorist
vowels. Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Dergisi 24: 205–214.
— 1988: The Turkic Nagy-Szent-Miklós inscription in Greek letters. AOH XLII: 221-
234.
— 1991: Old Turkic Word Formation. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (Turcologica 9). 2
vols.
— 1991a: An Altaic particle gU ? ~ !. Brendemoen 1991, 125-139.
— 1993: Die Sprache der wolgabolgarischen Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz
(Turcologica 13).
— 1994: Review of: Mark Kirchner, Phonologie des Kasachischen, vols. 1–2, Wies-
baden, 1992. Oriens 34: 553–557.
— 1996: Zum alttürkischen Vokalsystem. Emmerick et al., 67-82.
— 1997: Review of: Lars Johanson, Strukturelle Faktoren in türkischen Sprach-
kontakten, Stuttgart, 1992. Mediterranean Language Review 9–10: 227–234.
— 1997a: Further notes on the Irk Bitig. TL 1: 63-100.
— 1998: Mongolische Verbalbildung in ostsibirischen Türksprachen?. I.A. Nevskaja,
ed., Šorskaja Filologija i sravnitel’no-sopostavitel’nyje Issledovanija’, Vyp. 1.
Novosibirsk, 63-76.
— 1998a: Old Turkic. Johanson & Csató 138-157.
— 1998b: ‘Topic, subject and possessive compounds’. Johanson, L., ed., The Mainz
Meeting. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics
August 3-6 1994 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz) 75-84.
— 2002: On the frontness opposition in loanwords in Old Uygur. Papers in Honour of
Professor Masahiro Shogaito on his 60th Birthday = SIAL XVII: 3-23.
— 2002a: Anmerkungen zu den Jenissei-Inschriften. Ölmez & Raschmann 51-73.
— & Schönig, C. 1990: Frühtürkisch bo oder bu?. UAJb N.F. 9: 131-136.
— & Tezcan, S., ed., 1995: Beläk bitig. Sprachstudien für Gerhard Doerfer zum 75.
Geburtstag (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz) Turcologica 23.
Foy, K. 1900: Türkische Vocalstudien, besonders das Köktürkische und das Osmani-
sche betreffend. MSOS, WS: 180-217.
— 1904: Die Sprache der türkischen Turfan-Fragmente in manichäischer Schrift I.
SBAW, 1389-1403. (Reprinted in SEddTF III 503-517.)
Gabain, A.v. 1940: ‘Die Natur des Prädikats in den Türksprachen’. KCsA III: 84-94.
— 1940a: ‘Die Verbform °n im Uigurischen’. Annali del R.. Istituto Superiore
Orientale di Napoli, N.S., 1: 299-303.
— 1941: Alttürkische Grammatik (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). Reeditions appeared in
1950 and 1974.
— 1950: ‘Die Pronomina im Alttürkischen.’ ZDMG 100: 581-591.
— 1950a: ‘Über Ortsbezeichnungen im Alttürkischen.’ SOF 14/5.
— 1952: ‘Zur Geschichte der türkischen Vokalharmonie’. UAJb 24,1-2, 49-104.
— 1954: ‘Alttürkische Datierungsformen’. UAJb 27: 191-203.
— 1957: ‘Die Bindevokale in den alttürkischen Brāhmī-Texten’. Z. V. Togan, ed.,
Proceedings of the 22nd Congress of Orientalists, held in Istanbul September 15th
to 22nd 1951, vol. II: Communications (Leiden: Brill) 401-408.
— 1959: Das Alttürkische. PhTF I: 21-45.
— 1962: Vom Sinn symbolischer Farbenbezeichnung. AOH 15: 111-117.
— 1964: Die Schreiber der alt-türkischen Brāhmī-Texte. SOF 28/5: 3-11.
— 1970: Primäre und sekundäre Kasus im Alttürkischen. Jakobson, R. & Kawamoto,
Sh., eds., Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics. Presented to Shirô Hattori
on the occasion of his 60th Birthday. (Tokyo) 131-137.
— 1974: Alttürkische Grammatik. 3. Aufl. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).
544 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sims-Williams, N. 1981: The Sogdian sound system and the origins of the Uyghur
script. JA 269: 347-360.
— 2000: Avestan suβrā-, Turkish süvre. L. Bazin & P. Zieme: 329-331.
— 2000a: Bactrian Documents from Northern Afghanistan. I: Legal and Economic
Documents (Oxford: Oxford U.P.) Studies in the Khalili Collection vol. III.
Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum. Pt. II Inscriptions of the Seleucid and Parthian
Periods and of Eastern Iran and Central Asia. Vol. VI: Bactrian.
— 2002: Ancient Afghanistan and its invaders: linguistic evidence from the Bactrian
documents and inscriptions. Proceedings of the British Academy 116: 225-242.
Širalijev, M.Š. 1960: Ob etimologii deepričastij formy na -yban, -ibän, -uban, -übän.
VJa 3: 98-99.
Sprachwissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der deutschen Turfan-Forschung. Bde. I-III.
Leipzig, Zentralantiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, 1972-1985.
Stachowski, M., 1995: Der Komitativ im Jakutischen und Dolganischen. Analecta
Indoeuropaea Cracoviensia 2: 553-59. (= Smoczyński, W., ed., Kuryłowicz
Memorial Volume, part I).
Street, J., 1984: The particle či/ču in Early Middle Mongolian. CAJ 28: 119-152.
Subaşı Uzun, L. 1995: Orhon yazıtlarının dilbilimsel yapısı (Ankara: Simurg) TDAD 7.
Šukurov, Š. 1965: -ġalır/-gälir formasi haqida. Issledovanija po grammatike i leksike
tjurkskix jazykov (Taškent).
Tekin, Ş. 1965: Uygurcada yardımcı cümleler üzerine bir deneme. TDAYB 35-63.
Tekin, T. 1963: On Kök Turkic büntägi. CAJ 8/3: 196-198.
— 1964: On a misinterpreted word in the Old Turkic inscriptions. UAJb 25: 134-144.
— 1966: Bir “runik” harfin fonetik değeri hakkında. Reşid Rahmeti Arat için (Ankara)
Türk Kültürünü Araştırma Enstitüsü 19, seri I, sayı A 2, 412-417.
— 1967: Determination of Middle-Turkic long vowels through carūd. AOH 20: 151-
178.
— 1968: A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic (The Hague: Mouton).
— 1975: Ana Türkçede Aslî Uzun Ünlüler (Ankara) Hacettepe Üniv. Yayınları B 15.
— 1982: On the structure of Altaic echoic verbs in {KIrA}. AOH 36: 503-513.
— 1985: Üze zarfı hakkında. V. MATK, İstanbul, 23-28 Eylül 1985. I. Türk Dili, cilt 1
(Istanbul: İ. Ü. Edebiyat Fakültesi Türkiyat Araştırma Merkezi) 253-260.
— 1986: Zetacism and sigmatism: Main pillars of the Altaic theory. CAJ 30: 141-160.
— 1991: The comitative case in Orkhon Turkic. In Brendemoen ed., 355-359.
— 1992: Sigmatism in Chuvash reviewed. TDA 91: 121-130.
— 1993: Old Turkic Word Formation üzerine notlar. Dilbilim Araştırmaları 1993: 201-
208. Refers to Erdal 1991.
— 1994: Review of Doerfer 1993. TDA 4: 183-190.
— 1994a: Notes on Old Turkic Word Formation. CAJ 38/2: 244-281. Refers to Erdal
1991.
— 1994b: Tunyukuk yazıtı (Ankara: Simurg). TDAD 5.
— 1995: Relics of Altaic stem-final vowels in Turkic. B. Kellner-Heinkele & M.
Stachowski eds., Laut- und Wortgeschichte der Türksprachen. Beiträge des
Internationalen Symposiums Berlin, 7. bis 10. Juli 1992 (Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz) Turcologica 26, 173-187.
— 1995a: Türk Dillerinde Birincil Uzun Ünlüler (Ankara: Simurg) TDAD 13. Re-
edition of Tekin 1975.
— 1996: On Uigur {-gAlI} bol-, {-gAlI} boltuk-. TDA 6: 63-70.
— 1996a: On the Old Turkic dative-locative suffix {+A}. In Emmerick et al., 327-333.
— 1997: On the Old Turkic verbal noun suffix {-dOk}. TDA 7: 5-12.
— 2002: On the Turkic gerundial suffix {-mAtI(n)}. Ölmez & Raschmann 375-384.
552 BIBLIOGRAPHY
This index does not include terms found in chapter and section headings; it is thus
meant to complement the table of contents. The numerals refer to pages; where page
numbers are followed by ‘n.’ the reference is to footnotes alone.
/a/ 14, 42, 50, 90, 93, 97 antag 126, 133, 193-4, 201, 212,
/a:/ 47 336, 429, 445, 447; cf. antäg.
adïn 334, 393, 401 antag antag 201
alku 191, 217, 225, 231, 420 antak, anta ok 125
alku+gu, alkugun 176, 226 antakï(y)a ok 106
amarï, amarïlarï 163, 226 antaran 203 cf. andïran
an+ 126, 199, 205-6 antäg 126; cf. antag.
+anč 156 antïn sïŋar 216, 503
anča 201-3, 206, 213, 327, 505, 511 antïran, antran 203
ančada bärü, ančada ken 203 aŋa, aŋar 18, 178, 200
ančada 202, 213 aŋaru 200, 206
ančadïn 205 ap, ap ... ap 338, 509
ančadïn bärü 203 apam, apaŋ 341, 496
ančagïnča 202, 327 ara+kï 187
ančak 202 artok, artok+ï 42, 169, 221
ančaka tägi 202-3, 213 ašnu 188, 205, 223, 331
anča+kya 139-140, 202 ašnu+ča 287
ančama, anča ymä 206, 516 ašnukï 188
ančan 202 ašnurak 150
ančïp 201, 206, 327, 339, 511 ayï 18, 345
ančula, ančulayu 92, 198, 202-3 azu, azu ... azu 338, 406, 509
andïran 203; cf. antïran, antaran azu+ča 287, 326
and antran
andïrtïn 203 /A/ 38, 46, 59, 89-90, 99, 123 127-8
anï 200 +A (part of proper names) 144
st
anï üčün 512 +A (variant of dative suffix with 1
nd
anï+ča 201 and 2 person possessives)184
anïlayu 198, 201 +A- 90, 128, 149, 228
anïn 200, 236, 314, 487, 512 -A 127-8, 311, 458
anïŋ 381 +(A)d- 128, 228
anïŋda, anïŋdïn ken, anïŋsïz 197, AgU > A 123, 243
205 +(A)gU(n+) 25, 80, 127-8, 160-61,
anta 173, 205, 476, 512 167, 169, 176, 183, 191, 211,
antača, andača, antada, antadan, 225-6
antadïn, antadata bärü 203-4 +AgUt 128, 146
antakï 205 +Ak 145
564 INDEX OF OLD TURKIC ELEMENTS
birök 176, 337, 342, 496, 501 +čA+lAyU 92, 177; cf. +čIlAyU.
birök+in 326, 348 +čA+sIg 139
biz 123, 144, 147, 160, 163, 189, +čI 129-31, 140, 148-9, 154, 177,
192, 195-8, 209, 218-9, 222, 243, 279, 291-2
234, 455; cf. miz. -čI 243
bizdä, biziŋä, biziŋčiläyü, biziŋdä čI 345
197 +čIlAyU 180; cf. +čA+lAyU.
biziŋ+tä+ki+čä 169, 197 +čU+ 177, 198
biziŋ, bizniŋ 44, 195 čU 345, 351, 522
bizinčüläyü 92, 198 -čUk 114, 152; cf. -kUč.
bizintä 173, 196 +čUlAyU 180, 190
bizkä 196-7
bizlär 195 /d/ 62, 67, 69, 116, 118-9, 173-4,
bizni 167 288, 294, 315, 317
biznidä 196 [d] 62, 67-9, 100, 118, 121, 214,
biznilig 150, 196, 201 315, 317
BIn 193 d ~ δ 67-8
*bïn+ 94, 205-6 /d/ > /y/ 9, 19, 121-2, 316
bo 18, 45, 123, 126, 133, 183, 191, -d+ 234, 238, 246, 265-6, 273
193, 195, 197, 199-201, 205-6, +dA (~+tA) 13, 15, 68-9, 92, 118-
210, 212-13, 219-20, 222, 224, 9, 121, 128, 150, 173-5, 188-9,
231-2, 332, 423 197, 204, 291, 372
bo+lar+ta+kï+g 205 +dA+kI 188, 387
bol- 229, 245, 249-50, 255-6, 271- -dAčI 11, 14, 68-9, 118-9, 149,
2, 276, 294, 322, 324, 409 230, 233, 243, 250, 263, 270,
bol-čun, bolmazun 235 272, 282, 286, 288-90, 293,
bol-gay 352 321, 323, 421, 485, 508
bol-or, bolur 90, 272 -dAčI är- 290
bol-up 219 -dAčI ärti 270-1
bol-zun 90 -dAčI bol- 250
bolgay 244, 272, 522 +dAm 91, 119, 128, 140, 146
bolmadačï 289 +dAn / +dIn 13, 69, 119, 174-5,
boltï 272 281, 375
bolu ber- 261 +dAš 140, 147
bolzunï 236 -di / -ti 315
bun+ 94, 126, 183, 199, 205-6 -dI 69, 141, 231, 239, 245, 273, 298
bunda / bunta 173, 199 +dI 129; cf. +tI ~ +dI.
burun, burun+kï 18 -dIlAr 231, 239
büntägi 126, 193 +dIn (~ +dAn) 13, 174-5, 181, 281,
376, 457
/č/ 56, 70, 83, 103, 109, 193, 207 +dIr / +dUr 203
[č] 13, 113, 115 +dIrtIn 175
čak 266, 343 -dOk (~ -tOk) 27, 31-2, 69, 118-9,
+čA 92, 128, 177, 190, 198, 202, 129, 163, 215, 238-40, 242,
318-9, 322, 340, 376, 390, 468-9 246, 281, 293-6, 298, 319, 375,
+čA+kyA 139 431, 440, 443, 454, 469, 484-5
566 INDEX OF OLD TURKIC ELEMENTS
/l/ 59-62, 65-66, 68, 79, 84, 86, 91- -mAč 112
93, 102, 104-5, 109, 111-112, 114, -mAčI 14, 18, 243, 263, 270, 272,
116, 118-21, 132, 173, 177, 186, 290
202, 232, 235, 238-9, 287-8, 294, -mAdAčI 18, 243, 283, 286, 289,
465 291
/l/ ~ /š/ 85 -mA-dOk 18, 229, 239, 272-3, 276,
+lA 201, 213, 315, 330 294, 296, 298, 321, 421, 497
lA 276 -mAdOkXm 422
+lA- 98, 128, 179, 223, 228, 315 -mA-gInčA 318, 479
+lA+tI / +lA-tI 214-5 -mA-glI 286, 291
+lAkA < +lAr+kA 111 -mA-gU 229, 421
+lAn- 228 -mA-gUčI 229, 283
+lAr 104, 128, 137, 139-40, 150, -mA-gUlXk 152, 229, 303, 307, 421
157-9, 165, 191, 195, 230-32, -mAk 128, 279, 280-82, 303, 454,
234, 237, 239, 283, 510 472, 526
-lAr 158, 231 -mAk+I bolzun, -mAk+lArI bolzun
+lArI 165 524
+lAyU 177, 179-80, 190, 198, 201, -mAk+IŋA 319, 473
204, 223, 312, 380 -mAk+kA 112, 360
*lč > š 102 -mAk+lArI bol- 281
[ld] 69 -mAk+lXg 281, 438
+(l)dUrXk, +ldruk, +(l)dArXk, -mAk+sXz 153, 282, 291, 303
+ltarak 17, 97, 111, 128-9, 146- -mAksXzIn, -mAk+sXz+Xn 314,
7; cf. +trUk. 316, 458, 467
+lI 129, 161, 166-7, 191, 509 -mAk+tA 457
/ll/ > /l/ 202 -mAk üčün 280
lŋ < ŋl 281 -mA-mAk 303
/lr/ 106 -mA-mIš 18, 229, 240, 273, 294,
+lXg 3, 14, 31-32, 90-92, 129, 137, 298
139-40, 142, 145, 149-50, 155-6, -mAn 128
161, 177, 180-81, 196, 325, 333, maŋa 200
385, 396, 452, 535 maŋaru 194
+lXgU ~ +lUgU(n) 128-9, 160, -mA-ŋ-Xz 11
176, 180-81, 314, 379 -mAs 99, 242, 284; cf. -mAz.
+lXk 129, 140, 144, 147, 306 -mAsA(r) 320
-lXn- 97, 229, 434 mAt 342, 344
-mAtI 176, 213, 230, 278, 314-5,
/m/ 95, 99, 103, 117, 151, 344 327, 458, 465
m < b 11, 62, 74, 117 -mAtI+n 55, 128-9, 230, 246, 252,
#m° < #b° 100, 198 278, 310, 314, 327, 458, 465
mA 91, 98, 107, 128, 170, 206, -mA-(X)yXn 317
219, 347-8, 517; cf. ymä. -mAyIn 317
-mA 152 -mAyOk täg 469
-mA- 85, 98, 128, 138, 156, 229, -mA-yOk 294, 421
242-3, 278, 281, 291, 303, 314, -mA-yOk+kA 240, 319, 457, 486
422, 486 -(mA-)yU 317
570 INDEX OF OLD TURKIC ELEMENTS
+n+ 15, 161-2, 167, 180, 191, 195- 196, 205, 212, 225-6
6, 199, 206, 212, 330 +nI+ (pronominal intercalary
°n# 158 element) 196
n ~ y 74 +nIŋ, +nUŋ 94, 169; cf. +(n)Xŋ.
naru 104, 206; cf. ïnaru. */nk/ > /ŋ/ 81
nä 99, 191, 201, 209-13, 215, 217- [nš] > [nč] 152
20, 322, 451, 453, 476, 481, +nXŋ+dA 190
505, 516 +(n)Xŋ 61, 80, 128-9, 168-9, 195;
nä + -(X)p 310 cf. +nIŋ, +nUŋ
nä ärsär 125, 219; cf. näzä. /ny/ 13, 74, 181
nä nägü iš 211
nä törlüg, nä yaŋlïg 217 /ŋ/ 14-15, 29, 44, 80-81, 110-111,
nä ymä 214, 516 117, 162, 169, 206, 219, 453
nä+(A)gU+lXk, näg(ü)lük 60, 123, [ŋ] 80
211, 213, 243, 413
nä+siŋä, nägü+siŋä 212 /ñ/ 12-13, 33-4, 62, 71-5, 80, 110,
nä+čä 92, 212-15, 217, 453, 500, 181, 210
503-4; cf. ničä. ñ > n 16
näčä mä 495 ñ > y 19, 34
näčädä 202, 213, 215, 218, 481 ñ > yn 72
näčäkä tägi 213 [ñč] 95, 130
näčük, näčükin, näčükläti 213,
470, 482 /o/ 42, 48-50, 88, 90-91, 129, 380
nädä ötrö 505 [o] 42, 88, 90-91, 129
nädä 212 o/ö 27
nägü 211, 454 -o / -ö 90; cf. -U.
nägük < nägü (ö)k 123, 211 ol 18, 32, 49, 133, 190-91, 198-9,
nägüdä ötgürü 211 201-2, 205-7, 212, 215-16, 218-
nägül < nä+gü ol 125 19, 224, 228, 231-2, 234, 240,
näkä 212 272, 282, 298-9, 305-8, 310,
nälök, nälük 31, 60, 123, 213, 243 316, 321, 323-4, 357, 414
nämä 214 olar (< *ol+lar) 112, 202, 231
nämän 213 ona 202, 206
nänčä 212 -or / -ör / -ür 90; cf. -Ur.
näŋ 99, 213, 216-7, 346 oš 199
näräk, nä käräk 123, 125-6
närgäy, nä ärgäy, n(ä)rgäy 125, /O/ 127, 129, 131, 412
322 Ok, (O)k 45, 91, 95, 125, 129, 133,
nätäg, nä täg 133, 212-3, 336, 471, 137, 150, 152, 154, 201, 207,
503-4 219, 242, 245, 310, 314, 342-3,
nätägin, nätägläti 133, 213 347, 425, 431, 472, 476, 512
näzä 125, 219; cf. nä ärsär. -(O)k, 99, 110, 127, 129,132, 152
[nd] 69
ničä 92; cf. näčä. /ö/ 48, 81, 88, 91, 129, 380
+niŋ 212 [ö] 42, 88, 91, 106, 121
+nI 18, 167, 170-1, 186, 191-2, öŋi 169, 176, 225, 314, 328
572 INDEX OF OLD TURKIC ELEMENTS
-(X)nčU 113, 128-9, 148, 152 (y)a, +yA 69, 121, 131, 172-3, 179,
-(X)ŋ 61, 129, 237, 520 187, 196 (vocative element)
+(X)ŋ 129, 160, 165, 184, 234 ya 354 (exclamation)
+(X)ŋA 80, 184 yan, yAn 80, 128, 133, 137, 214,
+(X)ŋArU 80 336
+(X)ŋIn 185 yana, yänä (ök), yenä 51, 95-6,
-(X)ŋ-lAr 9, 237, 520 107, 150, 165, 328, 338, 509
-(X)ŋUr 237 yapa 226
+(X)ŋXz 61 yarlï(g)ka- 10, 18, 44, 112, 241,
+(X)ŋ(X)zlAr 165 247, 262, 409, 529
-(X)p alk- 250, 409 /yï/ 96
-(X)p anïn 513 ymä / yämä 44, 91, 95, 107, 151,
-(X)p är- 250, 252, 311 159, 163, 167, 258, 329, 337,
-(X)p bar- 250, 253, 254 342, 347, 458, 495, 509, 512,
-(X)p ïd- 257 517; cf. mA.
-(X)p kal- 250 /yn/ 74
-(X)p kod- 409 ynä, yñā 95
-(X)p tur- 250, 255 yok 227, 229, 324, 412, 416
-(X)p 13-14, 17, 61, 90, 94, 129, yol+ï 164, 224
132, 143, 177, 201, 206, 219, yomkï, yomkï+gu 225-6
229-30, 246-7, 249, 251-4, 257, yorï- 77, 248-9, 251-2, 323, 325, 534
260-61, 278, 308, 327, 458-9, -yOk (-yUk ?) 21, 27, 73, 129, 240,
476, 481, 510-11 245, 263, 266-8, 272, 278, 293-
-(X)pAn 13, 15, 128-9, 176-7, 229, 4, 299-300, 421, 438
278, 308-10, 314, 327, 458 yr > ry 281
-(X)pAnIn 15, 236 -yU 128, 311, 458
-(X)pAnXn 13, 176, 310, 458 -yUr (< -yU är-ür ?) 128, 131-2,
+(X)rKA- 128-9, 228 240-41; cf. -Ar, -Ir, -Ur, -r.
-Xš 124, 128-9, 142, 152, 155 yXn < yn 72
+Xš 146 #yV° ~ #V° 108
-(X)š- 137, 142, 228, 249, 433 #yVCV° > #yCV° 107
-(X)š+čI 149
+(X)t 129, 158 [z] 106
-(X)t- / -(I)t- 18, 70, 97, 110, 120, /z/ 30, 62, 68, 83-5, 105, 116, 118,
129, 131-2, 229, 232, 241, 299, 121, 163, 179, 236, 241-2, 445
311, 315, 433; cf. -(I)t-. z ~ rs 84
-(X)yXn / -(A)yXn / -yXn 129, 316 -z 163, 241-2
-(X)z 129, 152, 242 -zU, -zUnI 236
+(X)z 129, 160, 162-3, 191, 195, -zUn 83, 121, 128, 231, 236-7,
225 492, 525; cf. -žUn.
-(X)z- 129, 229 -zUnIn 176, 236
-zUnlAr 231, 237
/y/ 12-13, 19, 30, 34, 44, 52, 54,
62, 69-74, 81, 95, 107, 110, [ž] 70, 83-4, 105, 235
121, 123, 131, 210, 243, 533 -žUn 235; cf. -zUn.
[y] 34, 75, 99